V 


DS  149  . G6  1914 
Gottheil,  Richard  James 
Horatio ,  1862-1936. 
Zionism 


MOVEMENTS  IN  JUDAISM 


PUBLISHED 

Zionism.  By  Richard  J.  H.  Gottheil,  Ph.  D.,  Professor  of 
Semitic  Languages  in  Columbia  University,  New 
York  City. 

IN  PREPARATION 

Hellenism.  By  Norman  Bentwich,  author  of  “  Philo- 
Judaeus  of  Alexandria,”  and  “Josephus.” 

Mysticism.  By  Joseph  H.  Hertz,  Ph.  D.,  Chief  Rabbi  of 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

Pharisaism.  By  Solomon  Schechter,  M.  A.,  Litt.  D.,  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  of  America, 
author  of  “  Studies  in  Judaism.” 

Rationalism.  By  Isaac  Husik,  Ph.  D. 

Reform  Judaism.  By  Samuel  Schulman,  D.  D.,  Rabbi  of 
Temple  Beth-El,  New  York  City. 


MOVEMENTS  IN  JUDAISM 

ZIONISM 


'D  'UK  |'K  DK 


frontispiece 


MOVEMENTS  IN  JUDAISM 


ZIONISM 


BV 

RICHARD  J.  H.  GOTTHEIL 

Professor  of  Semitic  Languages  in  Columbia  University,  New  York 
Sometime  President  of  the  Federation  of  American  Zionists 


Philadelphia 

The  Jewish  Publication  Society  or  America 

1914 


Copyright,  1914, 

BY 

The  Jewish  Publication  Society  or  America 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Foreword  . : .  13 

I.  The  Pre-Herzlites .  17 

II.  The  Colonization  of  Palestine .  48 

III.  Leo  Pinsker  and  Autoemancipation .  60 

IV.  Theodor  Herzl .  82 

V.  The  Jewish  Congress .  108 

VI.  The  Post-Herzlian  Period .  143 

VII.  Some  Phases  of  Zionistic  Theory .  165 

VIII.  Ahad  ha-Am  and  the  Philosophy  of  Jewish  History.  181  u-' 

IX.  Zionism  and  the  Western  Jews .  198  ?  ^ 

Notes .  217 

Bibliography  .  233 

Index . 235 


9 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

Theodor  Herzl  (1860-1904)  . Frontispiece 

Moses  Hess  (1812-1875) . facing  page  36 

Leo  Pinsker  (1821-1891) .  “  “  66 

The  Second  Congress,  Basel,  August  28-31, 

1898 . following  “  92 

Medal  Struck  in  Honor  of  the  Second  Congress,  facing  “  124 

Certificate  of  an  Inscription  in  the  Golden 

Book  of  the  Jewish  National  Fund .  “  “  156 

Six  Stamps  of  the  Jewish  National  Fund .  “  “  188 


11 


FOREWORD 

It  was  with  much  pleasure  that  I  accepted  the 
mandate,  offered  to  me  by  The  Jewish  Publication 
Society  of  America,  to  contribute  an  essay  on  Zion¬ 
ism  as  one  of  a  series  dealing  with  prominent 
Jewish  movements.  Whichever  side  of  the  ques¬ 
tion  appeals  to  us,  we  must  all  recognize  that  under 
the  name  Zionism  a  solution  of  the  Jewish  problem 
has  been  presented  which  must  be  of  much  moment 
for  the  future  of  the  Jewish  people.  I  venture  to 
think  that  it  is  the  only  solution  and  to  hold  that  the 
weal  or  woe  of  our  race  depends  upon  our  espousal 
or  rejection  of  it.  In  saying  so  much,  I  am  prac¬ 
tically  affirming  my  standpoint.  I  make  no  excuse 
for  the  trend  of  my  thought.  I  have  written 
frankly  as  a  Zionist,  and  I  believe  that  the  Publi¬ 
cation  Society  and  its  many  members  will  be  served 
best  by  the  presentation  of  all  such  subjects  at  the 
hand  of  those  whose  sympathy  for  them  has  made 
them  able  to  understand  their  essence.  Above  all, 
I  have  been  mindful  of  the  advice  given  by  the 

IB 


2 


FOREWORD 


philosopher  on  the  throne  of  the  Caesars,  “  Let 
there  be  in  your  speech  an  accent  of  heroic  truth.” 

It  is  sometimes  held  that  an  historian  must  be 
unbiased,  and  must  stand  vis-a-vis  to  his  subject 
much  as  a  physician  does  to  his  patient.  Such  de¬ 
tachment  may  be  valuable  for  a  mere  chronicler, 
to  whom  dry  dates  and  lifeless  facts  are  all-im¬ 
portant.  But  a  people  has  a  soul,  just  as  individual 
human  beings  have.  To  understand  that  soul, 
something  more  is  needed  than  mere  dates  and 
facts.  If  evolution  is  creative,  as  Monsieur  Bergson 
holds,  the  attempt  must  be  made  to  understand  in 
what  that  creative  spirit  consists,  and  this  can  be 
attained  only  by  active  sympathy  with  the  peculiar 
phase  of  the  soul-life  the  historian  has  to  depict. 
This  need  not  prevent  him  from  taking  a  broad 
view  of  the  opinion  of  others  who  do  not  see  the 
light  in  exactly  the  same  fashion.  I  have  tried  to 
do  justice  to  the  opposing  view,  and,  if  I  have  not 
succeeded,  the  shortcoming  is  excusable  from  the 
earnestness  with  which  the  problem  appeals  to  me. 
The  reader  will  make  his  own  deduction  on  that 
score. 

I  have  omitted  many  minor  details — small  differ¬ 
ences  of  opinion  that  loomed  large  at  certain 
times  and  became  subjects  of  heated  discussion — in 

14 


FOREWORD 


order  to  lay  stress  upon  what  seemed  to  me  to  be  the 
leading  lines  of  development.  I  have  also  respected 
confidences,  due  to  my  intimate  relations  with  most 
of  the  leaders,  which  might  discover  motives  or 
place  certain  facts  in  a  clearer  light.  The  time  has 
not  yet  come  for  disclosing  the  inner  history  of 

many  of  the  negotiations  to  which  reference  is  made 
in  the  following  pages. 

Richard  Gottheil. 

Columbia  University,  New  York, 

October,  1912. 


15 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 

In  commenting  upon  a  passage  in  the  Book  of 
Psalms — so  the  Talmud  relates1 — two  rabbis  ex¬ 
pressed  opposing  views.  One  held  that  “  the  time 
is  adapted  to  the  leader”;  the  other,  that  “the 
leader  is  adapted  to  the  time.”  As  is  so  often  the 
case  when  views  diverge,  both  phrases  “  are  expres¬ 
sions  of  eternal  truth.”  To  very  few  men  has  it 
been  given  to  be  far  ahead  of  the  forces  they  were 
leading.  Such  a  faculty  has  been  reserved  for  the 
thinker  and  the  seer,  for  the  more  poetic  nature, 
which  can  set  itself  above  the  demands  of  practical 
life  and  measurable  possibilities  and  soar  into  the 
refined  atmosphere  of  pure  thought. 

Theodor  Herzl  was  not  originally  a  man  of 
action.  A  poet,  a  writer,  a  dreamer  in  the  best  sense 
of  that  term,  he  would  seem  to  have  been  fitted 
poorly  by  his  early  life,  his  education,  his  associa¬ 
tions  for  the  role  he  was  called  upon  to  play.  Yet 
the  circumstances  in  which  the  Jewish  people  were 
placed  and  the  various  converging  currents  of 

17 


ZIONISM 


thought  were  such  as  to  force  him  to  the  leadership 
of  a  people  at  a  most  critical  period  of  its  history. 
Since  1896  sixteen  years  have  gone  by.  Some  of 
the  acuter  controversies  raised  by  the  appearance  of 
Zionism  have  passed  away.  As  opposition  has  be¬ 
come  less  marked,  and  the  dire  results  presaged 
have  not  ensued,  so  also  a  certain  inner  evolution 
has  taken  place  within  the  movement  itself.  The 
fundamental  principles  upon  which  the  whole 
organization  rests  have  indeed  remained  intact  and 
inviolate,  but  it  was  inevitable  that  the  direction  of 
its  conscious  effort  should  change  as  the  circum¬ 
stances  changed  in  which  it  worked.  Perhaps  the 
moment  has  come  when  an  estimate  can  be  made 
of  the  part  played  by  Zionism  in  modern  Jewish 
life,  of  the  clearer  perception  of  Jewish  problems 
which  it  has  induced,  and  of  the  contribution  it  has 
made  towards  a  possible  solution  of  some  at  least 
of  these  problems.  With  this  purpose  in  view,  the 
following  pages  have  been  written. 

I  have  taken  the  year  1896  as  the  starting-point, 
not  because  historical  movements  of  great  moment 
can  be  fixed  within  definite  limits  of  time,  but  be¬ 
cause  that  date  affords  a  convenient  point  of  vantage 
from  which  to  look  both  backward  and  forward : 
backward,  because  it  is  necessary  to  see  how  “  the 

18 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


time  was  adapted  to  the  leader  ” ;  forward,  in  order 
to  measure  the  degree  in  which  “  the  leader  was 
adapted  to  the  time.” 

One  need  not  be  biased  towards  any  of  the  ex¬ 
isting  expressions  of  Jewish  feeling  and  thought  to 
say  that  to  none  of  them  could  the  situation  have 
appealed  as  satisfactory  in  itself  or  as  promising 
in  the  hope  that  it  held  out  for  the  future.  Western 
Jewry,  and  by  that  I  mean  the  Jews  who  had  been 
born  and  reared  in  contact  with  the  more  advanced 
civilization  of  Central  and  Western  Europe  and 
of  the  United  States,  had  staked  its  all  upon  the 
political  emancipation  for  which  it  had  fought  with 
such  tenacity  and  with  such  eminent  success.  It  is 
true  that  there  were  many  inner  conflicts  within  that 
Jewry,  but  the  larger  mass  of  the  Jews  had  been 
content  to  leave  such  matters  for  discussion  among 
the  learned  and  the  religious  leaders.  The  great 
ideals  enounced  by  the  prophets  of  old  had  found 
an  echo  in  the  highest  aspirations  of  some  of  the 
leading  thinkers  and  statesmen  of  the  century.  The 
Jews,  born  optimists  as  they  are,  eagerly  followed 
a  lead  that  spoke  in  language  to  which  they  and 
their  forebears  had  been  well  accustomed.  As  the 
walls  of  the  physical  and  constitutional  Ghettos 
were  razed  one  by  one,  the  Western  Jews  felt  that 

19 


ZIONISM 


at  last  they  had  come  into  their  heritage,  that  they 
could  take  their  place  by  the  side  of  their  non- 
Jewish  fellow-citizens,  and  that  both  would  move 
forward  and  on  to  a  higher  level,  leaving  behind 
them  all  the  controversies  and  the  struggles  of  the 
past  as  unpleasant  reminiscences  of  a  time  that  was 
gone  forever. 

It  is  quite  certain  that  the  Jewish  Reformers  and 
their  followers  were  absolutely  sincere  in  their  the¬ 
ories  and  in  their  actions.  They  met  the  demands 
of  the  newly-created  situation  with  characteristic 
energy.  They  were  not  merely  shouting  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  patriotism.  They  knew  that  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  new  rights  carried  with  it  the  obligation  of 
new  duties;  they  had  to  fit  Jewish  thought  and  Jew¬ 
ish  observance  into  the  new  grooves  in  which  their 
lives  and  the  lives  of  their  children  were  to  run. 
Above  all,  they  wished  to  save  the  Jewish  religion, 
even  at  the  expense  of  nationality  and  race,  not 
realizing  that  the  two  last  were  the  chief  bulwarks 
of  the  religion.  They  commenced  to  doff  the  Jew¬ 
ish  gabardine,  to  shuffle  off  ways,  habits,  and  ob¬ 
servances  that  seemed  to  run  counter  to  the  forms 
of  modern  conditions.  For  them,  in  very  truth, 
the  “  East  was  the  East  and  the  West  was  the 
West.”  They  felt  that  they  must  do  their  share 

20 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


in  the  tacit  understanding  they  had  come  to  with 
what  they  called  the  “  modern  spirit.” 

It  is  not  difficult  to  sympathize  with  the  Re¬ 
formers  in  their  attempt  to  save  Judaism.  This 
was  the  kernel,  for  which  rites,  ceremonies,  and 
observances  made  up  the  husk.  Nor  did  they 
imagine  that  the  kernel  could  continue  and  be 
shorn  of  its  husk.  But  they  did  think  that  the  husk 
was  unnecessarily  thick;  even  that  its  whole  char¬ 
acter  could  be  changed  and  still  remain  the  husk  of 
that  particular  kernel.  In  point  of  fact,  a  good  part 
of  the  husk  had  commenced  to  be  withered  and 
blighted.  Various  forms  had  died  a  natural  death 
and  had  fallen  by  the  wayside.  Jews  everywhere 
had  bridled  at  some  of  the  ancient  customs,  and  had 
silently  sunk  them  into  oblivion.  But  no  official 
action  had  been  taken.  Very  few  of  the  changes 
that  occurred  in  ritual  matters  during  the  Middle 
Ages  had  been  made  consciously  or  with  delibera¬ 
tion.  They  had  been  accepted  de  facto  and  post 
eventum.  Least  of  all  had  such  action  been  taken 
in  matters  of  belief  or  theory.  But  it  had  always 
been  a  Jewish  postulate  that  religion  and  life  were 
intimately  bound  up  one  with  the  other.  The  first 
to  break  the  rivet  had  been  Moses  Mendelssohn,  the 
Berlin  sage.2  He  had  laid  entire  stress  upon  one  side, 

21 


V 


ZIONISM 


Jewish  life,  and  had  allowed  individual  belief  to 
range  as  wide  as  possible.  “  The  Spirit  of  Judaism 
is  freedom  in  doctrine  and  conformity  in  action.” 
But  absolute  conformity  in  action,  both  as  regards 
the  individual  and  his  neighbor  and  as  regards 
the  present  and  the  past,  being  impossible,  the  re¬ 
sult  was  inevitable.  Jewish  life  became  atrophied, 
and  Jewish  belief,  having  no  hold  and  no  stability, 
soon  lost  all  distinctive  character.  The  descendants 
of  the  Mendelssohnian  group  have  very  largely 
passed  out  of  Jewry. 

The  German  Reformers  chose  the  other  way  to 
break  through  the  attachment.  They  laid  great 
stress  upon  Jewish  belief,  upon  the  religious  side. 
Jewish  life  as  such  did  not  appeal  to  them  with 
much  force,  and,  freed  from  what  they  considered 
the  “  trammels  ”  of  Jewish  observance,  Jewish  be¬ 
lief  became  in  time  watered  into  a  thinly-veiled 
theism.  The  most  serious  renunciation  was  that 
connected  with  the  great  hope  of  Israel’s  restora¬ 
tion,  the  pivot  on  which  Jewish  spiritual  life  re¬ 
volved.  The  Jewish  world  had  until  then  believed 
that  the  dispersion  was  a  punishment.  To  the  Re¬ 
formers  it  became  a  blessing.  Dispersion  should  be 
encouraged,  “  so  that  there  might  be  worshipers 
of  the  one  only  and  true  God  everywhere.”  3  The 

22 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 

loss  of  Palestine  signified  progress,  since  Israel’s 
ideals  were  carried  into  all  lands.  In  conformity 
with  these  views,  the  Frankfort  Rabbinical  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1845  voted  that  “all  petitions  for  the 
return  to  the  land  of  our  fathers,  and  for  the  restor¬ 
ation  of  a  Jewish  state,  should  be  eliminated  from 
the  prayers.”  4 

That  the  Reform  movement  has  not  fulfilled  its 
undertaking,  and  that  the  Reformers  were  mistaken 
in  part  of  the  theory  on  which  they  worked,  must  not 
be  laid  to  their  discredit.  They  could  not  foresee 
the  general  trend  of  the  world’s  thought  and  aspira¬ 
tion;  they  could  not  presage  the  effect  of  the  new 
orientation  upon  their  own  descendants;  and,  above 
all,  they  could  not  measure  the  influence  the 
masses  of  Eastern  Europe  were  to  exercise  in  inter¬ 
national  Jewry,  when  once  their  weight  was  put  in 
the  balance. 

At  various  times  in  the  history  of  Europe,  the 
principles  of  internationalism  and  of  national  par¬ 
ticularism  have  fought  for  predominance.  In  the 
Middle  Ages  the  Church  dreamed  of  a  universal 
Christian  community,  divided  into  nationalities  it 
is  true,  but  all  under  the  sway  of  the  acknowledged 
head  of  the  Roman  Church.  Such  dreams  were 
rudely  shattered  by  the  inner  development  of  the 

23 


ZIONISM 


Church  itself,  by  the  resurrection  of  Paganism  or 
of  pagan  ideals  at  the  time  of  the  Renaissance,  and 
by  the  growth  of  national  sentiments  that  refused 
to  submit  even  to  spiritual  domination.  Again,  at 
the  extreme  end  of  the  Middle  Ages,  a  movement 
towards  internationalism  was  distinctly  apparent, 
led  by  the  encyclopedists  and  deists  of  France,  and 
fed  by  the  growth  of  the  natural  sciences  and  the 
discoveries  in  the  domain  of  exact  knowledge.  This 
was  soon  followed,  however,  by  a  reversal  in  which 
old  races  revived  the  consciousness  of  their  separate 
existence,  and  new  national  segregations  were 
formed,  which  tended  to  develop  diversity  in  place 
of  unison.  The  first  of  such  transformations  may 
be  seen  in  the  rebirth  of  the  German  Empire,  in 
the  forward  movement  of  the  Slavs,  and  in  the 
growth  of  the  smaller  Balkan  states; 5  the  second, 
in  the  vast  growth  of  the  United  States  and  of 
Canada  in  the  northern  half  of  the  new  world  and 
of  the  newer  republics  in  its  southern  half. 

Amid  such  varying  developments,  the  Jewish 
people  occupied  a  peculiar,  not  to  say  dangerous, 
position.  Even  in  the  Roman  state,  tolerant  as  it 
was  of  alien  faiths,  existence  was  always  fraught 
with  some  danger  to  the  Jews.  Exceptional  laws 
were  passed  in  their  favor,  but  just  because  of  these 

24 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


laws  and  because  of  their  refusal  to  enter  the  melt¬ 
ing-pot  in  which  nationalities  and  races  were  fused, 
the  Jews  were  liable  at  any  moment  to  feel  the  pres¬ 
sure  of  exceptional  treatment  when  Roman  over¬ 
lordship  was  felt  to  be  in  danger.6  And,  after  all, 
even  in  the  Roman  Empire  citizenship  was  bound 
up  with  religion.  However  syncretistic  that  re¬ 
ligion  might  be,  it  was  Roman  and  not  Judaic.7  In 
the  evolution  of  a  universal  Christian  community 
the  Jews  manifestly  could  have  no  share.  As  both 
the  motives  and  the  objects  of  this  evolution  were 
religious,  no  proper  place  could  be  found  for  them. 
All  the  legislation  of  the  Middle  Ages  in  regard  to 
the  Jews  turns  about  the  endeavor  to  make  some 
provision  for  a  people  who  had  been  omitted  in  the 
scheme  according  to  which  the  statehood  of  the  day 
was  built  up.  Again,  both  the  Reformation  and 
the  Renaissance  were  inner  Christian  movements. 
The  revolt  from  Rome,  as  far  as  it  affected  the 
Jews,  was  a  revolt  from  a  religious  and  a  secular 
tyranny,  and  what  resulted  was  a  tyranny  that  was 
religious  only.  Protestantism  did  little  better  than 
Roman  Catholicism ;  it  could  not  assimilate  the  Jews 
upon  the  only  terms  possible  for  the  latter.  They 
remained,  no  longer  a  proscribed  people,  one  that 
was  merely  tolerated. 


25 


ZIONISM 


Had  the  universalistic  and  international  ten¬ 
dencies  of  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century 
persisted,  the  Jews  would  undoubtedly  have  found 
their  place  as  one  of  the  many  forces  working 
towards  that  end.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Jews 
have  not  been  backward  in  furthering  movements 
of  a  universalistic  character.  The  founders  of 
Socialism  were  Karl  Marx  and  Ferdinand  Las- 
salle;  the  inventor  of  a  universal  language  was 
Lazarus  Ludwig  Zamenhof ; 8  the  projector  of  the 
Universal  Race  Congress  was  Felix  Adler.  With 
equal  ardor,  the  Jews  threw  themselves  into  the 
national  movement  of  the  peoples  among  whom 
they  dwelt.  Not  only  did  they  wish  to  justify  the 
granting  of  equal  rights;  in  some  countries  their 
stake  was  deeper  down  in  the  ground  than  that  of 
many  of  their  co-citizens,  and  it  had  been  there  for 
a  much  longer  period.  Their  patriotism  was  quite 
whole-souled.  Unfortunately,  the  nationalist  bias 
in  Europe  tended  towards  chauvinism,  and  chau¬ 
vinism  led  to  a  narrowing  of  the  wider  outlook. 
Church  and  Society  joined  hands,  and  once  more 
there  was  no  place  for  the  Jews,  who  held  with 
tenacity  to  their  separate  existence  and  refused  to 
lose  their  existence.  In  this  way  the  ground  was 
prepared  in  which  Bismarck,  for  political  reasons, 

26 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


laid  the  seed  of  the  modern  anti-Semitic  movement, 
which  wrought  so  much  havoc  in  Germany  and  in 
France,  and  which,  in  passing  over  to  less  cultured 
nations,  produced  veritable  cataclysms  among  the 
Jews  of  Russia,  Roumania,  and  Galicia. 

How  was  the  new  danger  of  anti-Semitism  to  be 
met?  Some  of  the  better  elements  in  German 
Christian  society  thought  that  a  league  against  anti- 
Semitism  would  be  efficacious,  and  founded  the 
Verein  zur  Abwehr  des  Antisemitismus.  Among 
the  Jews,  many  were  of  opinion  that  if  they 
dropped  all  customs  that  render  them  distinct  as  a 
community  and  all  forms  that  differentiate  Jewish 
public  worship  from  that  of  the  Christian  Church, 
the  foundations  of  anti-Semitism  would  be  de¬ 
stroyed.  In  the  same  spirit,  Salomon  Reinach 
argues  that  the  Jewish  proletariat  will  have  more 
success  in  economic  competition,  if  Jewish  law  is  so 
amended  as  to  permit  the  Jews  to  violate  the  Sab¬ 
bath  and  to  eat  pork.9  Just  as  Reinach  forgot  that 
such  a  course,  quite  apart  from  all  higher  considera¬ 
tions,  would  only  increase  competition,  the  ultra- 
Reform  Jews  erred  in  thinking  that  anti-Semitism 
was  based  upon  theoretical  considerations,  and  argu¬ 
ments  could  avail  where  passion  was  the  moving 


ZIONISM 


spirit.  The  genuinely  Jewish  answer  to  anti-Semi¬ 
tism  was  yet  to  be  given ! 

The  effect  upon  the  Jews  themselves  of  these 
changes  in  orientation  was  formidable.  The  pas¬ 
sage  from  the  Jewish  Middle  Ages,  later  in  point 
of  time  than  the  general  European,  to  the  modern 
period  was  naturally  fraught  with  much  difficulty. 
It  meant  a  wrench  with  the  past  which  was  so 
momentous  in  many  cases  as  to  disorganize  families 
and  communities.  Here  and  there  excessive  zeal  in 
modernizing  led  to  deplorable  results,  and  weak¬ 
ened  the  foundations  upon  which  Jewish  cohesive¬ 
ness  was  based.  Concessions  are  necessary  on  the 
part  of  every  unit  in  a  state  organization :  ideas 
change  with  increasing  knowledge.  But  the  smaller 
unit  must  always  consider  the  length  to  which  it  may 
go  in  making  such  concessions  and  the  point  at 
which  concession  loses  all  its  grace  and  becomes  an 
ungainly  rush  towards  complete  self-obliteration.10 
Perhaps  the  most  serious  objection  that  can  be  raised 
to  some  of  the  later  developments  of  the  Reform 
movement  is  that  they  are  destroying  the  unity  that 
has  hitherto  prevailed  in  the  corporate  expression 
of  Jewish  practice  and  of  Jewish  hope.  Violent 
changes  have  been  made  in  the  ritual,  and  the  Jew¬ 
ish  perspective  has  been  remodeled  in  such  manner 

28 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


as  to  make  the  remodeling  a  renunciation.  The 
one  was  apt  to  make  the  Jew  a  stranger  among 
his  brethren  in  many  countries,  the  other  to  remove 
the  fixed  point  in  the  future  towards  which  all 
Jewish  endeavor  pointed  and  converged.  For,  as 
surely  as  the  old  Hebrew  prophets  had  a  wide  out¬ 
look  embracing  more  than  simply  Jewish  interests, 
so  surely  was  this  outlook  centered  upon  Judea  and 
upon  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  some  form  of  a 
reconstructed  common  existence.11  A  people  that 
has  no  common  physical  center  and  not  even  a 
spiritual  one  is  dependent  upon  its  common  outlook 
to  hold  it  together  and  direct  its  efforts  to  some  con¬ 
certed  end.  This  once  removed,  disintegration  is 
bound  to  set  in. 

In  this  respect,  a  study  of  ancient  Judaism  in  its 
relation  to  Hellenism  is  most  instructive.  No 
movement  with  which  the  Jews  have  come  in  con¬ 
tact  was  so  persuasive  in  its  attraction  and  so  se¬ 
ductive  as  Hellenism.  It  came  to  the  Jews  as  the 
representative  and  symbol  of  culture  and  of  art. 
It  contained  no  political  element,  as  did  later 
Roman  culture.  It  was  quite  adaptable  to  varying 
and  differing  civilizations;  its  ideals  insinuated 
themselves  among  men  and  peoples.  Had  it  not 
been  for  the  national  ideals  that  animated  the  Jews 
3  29 


ZIONISM 


in  Palestine,  they  might  have  gone  the  way  of 
their  brethren  in  Egypt,  or  have  descended  to  a 
compromise  which  would  eventually  have  produced 
some  form  of  hybrid  civilization,  like  that  of  pagan 
Syria.  Despite  all  their  Hellenizing,  the  Jews  in 
the  Diaspora  looked  upon  the  city  in  which  they 
dwelt  as  patris  (native  city) ,  but  upon  Jerusalem  as 
metropolis  (mother-city,  home).18 

On  the  other  hand,  an  unvarying  persistence  in 
stereotyped  formulae  and  an  unmodified  observance 
are  bound  to  get  out  of  joint  with  the  times.  If  the 
Reform  movement  has  weakened  the  supports  of 
traditional  Judaism,  and  has  facilitated  egress  from 
the  community,  certain  forms  of  unbending  Or¬ 
thodoxy  have  allowed  dry-rot  and  putrefaction  to 
enter  into  those  supports,  and  have  contributed  to 
the  alienation  of  large  numbers  of  the  younger  ele¬ 
ment,  whose  Jewish  feeling  failed  to  find  expression 
in  the  older  manner.  The  result  has  been  a  decided 
weakening  of  staying  force  and  a  capitulation,  on  a 
somewhat  large  scale,  to  the  iniquitous  demands 
made  by  social  and  bureaucratic  anti-Semitism, 
especially  in  such  countries  as  Germany  and 
Austria.13 

A  new  chapter  in  the  history  of  modern  Judaism 
has  been  written  by  the  forced  exodus  of  large 

30 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


numbers  of  Jews  from  Eastern  Europe.  As  the 
sad  human  stream  is  still  flowing,  it  is  too  early  to 
gauge  its  full  effect  upon  their  brethren  in  Western 
Europe  and  in  America.  But  even  now  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  this  effect  must  be  deep  and  far-reaching. 
Forced  by  circumstances,  the  Jews  of  Eastern 
Europe  had  lived  more  secluded  from  the  outside 
world  than  those  of  the  West.  Segregated  in 
this  manner,  they  had  been  able  to  preserve  intact 
more  of  the  forms  of  Jewish  life  and  to  maintain 
an  intenser  Jewish  spirit  than  had  been  possible 
where  contact  with  other  ideals  and  the  demands  of 
more  expanded  social  relations  had  drawn  the  Jews 
into  other  orbits.  To  them  the  Jewish  question 
presented  itself,  not  merely  as  a  subject  for  indi¬ 
vidual  speculation,  but  as  a  question  of  their  col¬ 
lective  life  or  death.  The  opposition  against  which 
they  had  to  contend  was  not  one  of  mere  pin-pricks ; 
it  threatened  their  whole  existence.  They  were 
thrown  back  upon  their  own  resources,  and  strength¬ 
ened  in  maintaining  that  which  they  felt  instinc¬ 
tively  was  their  sole  hope  of  salvation.  Into  their 
newer  exile  they  carried  an  intense  Jewish  spirit  and 
a  feeling  of  solidarity,  which  revived  the  waning 
spirit  of  Western  Jewries. 

In  addition,  the  cry  for  help  that  went  up  from 

31 


ZIONISM 


the  victims  of  a  relentless  persecution  that  refused 
to  disarm,  awoke  a  responsive  note  in  all  the  various 
communities  into  which  they  came.  The  active 
work  of  making  proper  provision  for  the  outcasts 
brought  Eastern  and  Western  Jewry  into  close  con¬ 
tact.  To  many  Western  Jews  it  suggested  for  the 
first  time  the  thought  that,  though  amongst  them¬ 
selves  there  was  to  be  found  what  they  were  pleased 
to  consider  the  best  product  of  the  amalgam  of 
Judaism  and  modern  culture,  the  great  mass  of 
Jews  lived  elsewhere — in  Eastern  Europe;  that  the 
Jewish  proletariat  lived  there,  a  proletariat  that 
would  outweigh  themselves  both  numerically  and 
Jewishly  in  any  settlement  of  the  Jewish  question 
in  which  the  Jews  had  a  word  to  say.  In  short,  the 
modern  crusade  waged  against  the  Jews  of  Eastern 
Europe  had  the  result  that  must  attend  all  such 
crusades.  Instead  of  hastening  the  disintegration 
and  final  disappearance  of  the  Jews,  which  was  its 
object,  it  retarded  it.  It  introduced  the  Eastern 
Jews  to  their  Western  brethren:  it  drove  them  into 
each  other’s  arms,  so  that  a  close  bond  of  sympathy 
was  established  between  two  portions  of  a  people 
that  had  been  estranged  for  so  long  a  time. 

The  Jews  emigrating  from  Russia,  however, 
carried  with  them  into  their  new  homes  an  ideal 


32 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


that  had  been  fostered  by  some  of  their  most  cher¬ 
ished  leaders  and  widest-read  writers — the  ideal 
that  has  been  called  Jewish  Nationalism.  Much  has 
been  written  to  prove  and  to  disprove  the  statement 
that  the  Jews  are  a  “  nation.”  In  the  last  analysis, 
the  dispute  turns  upon  a  definition  of  the  term.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  word  “  race  ”  and  its  relation 
to  “  nation.”  The  question  of  the  purity  of  the 
Jewish  race,  of  the  measure  of  intermixture  it  has 
suffered  during  its  centuries  of  exile  or  before,  does 
not  concern  us  here  at  all.  It  may  well  be  left, 
with  other  similar  questions,  to  be  determined  by 
anthropologists.  Race  may  or  may  not  be  condi¬ 
tioned  by  physical  phenomena;  but  so  much  may 
be  said:  it  is  not  due  to  the  exertion  of  the  human 
will  acting  as  a  free  agency.  It  is  different  with 
“  nation,”  which  represents  an  ideal  rather  than  a 
fact.  Men  band  themselves  together  for  the  ac¬ 
complishment  and  achievement  of  certain  ideals. 
Whether  they  reach  the  end  sought  for  or  not, 
matters  little.  The  heart  of  the  business  lies  in  the 
effort  that  is  made.  It  is  this  common  and  con¬ 
certed  effort  that  binds  men  together :  it  is  the  ideal 
that  animates  them  which  makes  of  them  a  nation; 
it  is  the  common  past  of  weal  or  woe,  the  collective 
intuition  of  deeds  done  or  of  experiences  passed 


ZIONISM 


through ;  it  is  the  combined  outlook  into  the  future. 
In  other  words,  it  is  the  common  soul  that  segre¬ 
gates  a  nation  and  differentiates  it  from  others. 

It  was  in  this  sense  that  Perez  Smolenskin  under¬ 
stood  the  term  Jewish  Nationalism.  Between  the 
years  1869  and  1884,  his  fruitful  pen  labored  with¬ 
out  cessation  to  the  quickening  of  the  Jewish  con¬ 
science  in  Russia.  The  very  title  of  his  chief  work, 
Am  Olam  ( An  Eternal  People ),  gives  us  the 
keynote  of  all  his  endeavor:  an  eternal  people 
must  keep  an  “  eternal  ideal  ”  constantly  in  view. 
That  ideal  he  finds  expressed  in  the  one  word 
“  Zion.”  Since  the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  it 
has  represented  the  hopes  of  the  Jewish  people. 
It  stands  for  the  peculiar  culture  after  which  the 
Jews  have  striven;  it  connotes  the  Hebrew  lan¬ 
guage,  the  use  of  which  must  be  cultivated  anew, 
as  the  expression  of  that  ideal;  and  later  in  life  it 
betokened  to  him  the  physical  goal  for  which  the 
Jews  must  strive  in  order  to  attempt  the  realization 
of  the  ideal.  Here,  for  the  first  time  in  Russia,  a 
view  of  Jewish  nationalism  was  proclaimed  that 
was  civic  and  social,  not  religious.  The  old  in¬ 
herited  Messianic  doctrine  had  become  secular 
and  profane.  As  we  shall  see,  Smolenskin  was  not 
alone  in  his  leadership.  Many  choice  spirits  were 

34 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 

to  gather  around  him  and  follow  him,  and  they  not 
only  propagated  the  transformed  doctrine  among 
their  brethren  in  Russia,  but  in  the  persons  of  many 
of  the  exiles  from  the  Pale  of  Settlement  sent  it 
fructifying  in  the  remotest  corners  of  the  Diaspora. 

Though  it  received  its  most  tangible  expression 
among  Russian  Jews,  it  is  wrong  to  suppose  that 
this  ideal  of  Jewish  nationality  was  entirely  strange 
to  the  West.  This  will  not  surprise  any  one  who 
is  familiar  with  Jewish  thought  and  history.  Ever 
since  the  Second  Jewish  Commonwealth  received 
its  death-blow  at  the  hands  of  Rome,  the  Jews  as  a 
body  have  lived  an  anomalous  life.  Driven  west¬ 
ward,  not  only  by  the  general  trend  of  civilization, 
but  also  by  the  special  circumstances  of  their  isolated 
existence,  their  religious  and  cultural  ideals  were  so 
closely  connected  with  Oriental  thought,  so  clothed 
in  Oriental  forms,  they  could  sing  with  their  be¬ 
loved  poet  Jehudah  Halevi,  mpl  '1^1  mrD3 
“  though  I  live  in  the  West,  my  heart  is  in  the 
East.”  It  did  not  need  the  formalizing  genius  of 
a  Maimonides  to  include  the  doctrine  of  the  return 
to  Palestine  in  the  Jewish  creed.  It  had  always  been 
part  and  parcel  of  the  belief  of  the  Jew,  and  had 
been  expressed  in  countless  sayings,  prayers,  and 
poems.14  It  is  true  that  this  return  was  looked  upon, 

35 


ZIONISM 


not  as  a  simple  historic  or  human  event,  but  as  part 
of  the  divine  scheme  of  governance.  It  was  to  be 
preceded  by  certain  superhuman  foreshadowings; 
it  was  to  be  made  effective  by  some  form  of  direct 
celestial  intervention;  and  as  distant  as  such  inter¬ 
vention  seemed  to  be,  so  remote  was  the  contingency 
of  the  return.  Any  attempt  to  further  that  consum¬ 
mation  by  human  beings  and  in  a  human  fashion 
would,  in  such  circumstances,  have  appeared  to 
be  blasphemy,  an  attempt  at  terrestrial  interference 
with  a  divine  process.  In  point  of  fact,  such  was 
the  attitude  adopted  by  the  Synagogue  towards  any 
one  presuming  to  guide  the  community  eastward, 
unless,  as  in  the  case  of  Sabbatai  Zebi,  he  was  under 
superhuman  conduct.  But  even  among  those  Jews 
who  had  moved  away  from  some  of  the  traditional 
standards,  the  belief  held  its  subconscious  grasp, 
and  with  the  advent  of  a  more  tangible  view  of 
cosmic  development,  it  is  natural  that  it  took  on  a 
more  human  and  terrestrial  form.15 

The  most  important  of  these  Western  pre- 
Herzlites  was  undoubtedly  Moses  Hess,  one  of  the 
early  German  Socialist  leaders  and  a  propagator  of 
Proudhon’s  anarchistic  ideas.  As  early  as  1840  16 
and  under  the  influence  of  the  Damascus  troubles, 
he  had  written  these  pregnant  words,  “  We  shall 

36 


MOSES  HESS 


I 


facing  p.  36 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


always  remain  strangers  among  the  nations;  these, 
it  is  true,  will  grant  us  rights  from  feelings  of 
humanity  and  justice;  but  they  will  never  respect 
us  so  long  as  we  place  our  great  memories  in  the 
second  rank,  but  in  the  first  the  principle,  ‘  ubi  bene, 
ibi  patria.’  ”  His  great  work  Rome  and  J erusalem, 
the  Latest  National  Question ,  published  in  1862, 
not  only  laid  down  the  historic  and  economic  bases 
of  that  which  was  not  yet  called  Zionism,  but  also 
contained  a  complete  plan  for  the  colonization  and 
rejuvenation  of  the  Holy  Land.  With  this  latter 
we  are  not  concerned;  it  was  called  forth  by  similar 
plans  formulated  by  Kalischer,  Gordon,  and 
Guttmacher  in  Russia.  But  it  is  interesting  to  see 
the  strength  of  Hess’  Jewish  consciousness.  He,  a 
German  political  writer  and  leader,  went  the  length 
of  advising  his  Jewish  brethren  to  sacrifice  even 
their  much-prized  emancipation,  if  emancipation 
should  be  found  to  be  irreconcilable  with  Jewish 
nationality.  For  he  held  that  it  was  impossible  to 
eradicate  the  Jewish  national  consciousness,  and  the 
Jewish  type  was  bound  to  persist. 

Hess’  words,  ardent  and  thrilling  though  they 
were,  found  little  echo  among  his  German  breth¬ 
ren.17  As  one  of  his  critics  said,  “  It  is  an  old  idea 
which,  with  its  practical  demands,  has  come  too 

37 


ZIONISM 


early.”  1S  Upon  one  man,  however,  Rome  and  Jeru¬ 
salem  exercised  a  decided  influence,  the  historian 
Heinrich  Graetz.  In  an  article  entitled  Die  V  er- 
jiingung  des  jiidischen  Stammes  ( The  Rejuvenes¬ 
cence  of  the  Jewish  Race),  published  in  1864,  he 
recognizes,  as  an  historian  should,  the  new  force 
that  was  slowly  making  its  way  into  Jewish  life: 
“  The  Jewish  race  is  approaching,  and  under  our 
very  eye,  a  rejuvenescence  which  would  formerly 
not  have  been  thought  possible.  The  enemies  of 
the  Jews  look  upon  it  with  implacable  rage,  the 
Jews  of  cosmopolitan  tendency  secretly  shake  their 
head,  the  followers  of  the  letter  of  the  law  associate 
deceptive  hopes  with  it — all  are  dumbfounded  at 
its  appearance.”  He  goes  on  to  compare  this  stir¬ 
ring  of  the  dead  bones  with  a  similar  agitation 
among  the  exiles  in  Babylon,  and  leaves  his  readers 
to  draw  their  conclusion.19 

It  is  true  that  in  some  of  the  proposals  put  for¬ 
ward  the  romantic  and  the  fanciful  outweighed  all 
practical  possibilities;  but  though  the  branches  and 
the  twigs  reached  far  out  into  the  realm  of  imagina¬ 
tion,  the  roots  were  firmly  grounded  in  facts  and  in 
a  clear  recognition  of  these  facts.  Even  the  some¬ 
what  grotesque  plan  of  Mordecai  Manuel  Noah,  to 
found  a  refuge  for  the  Jews  on  Grand  Island  near 

88 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


Buffalo,  was  built  upon  principles  which  have  found 
acceptance  in  later  days.  He  saw  clearly  the  need 
for  the  Jews  of  some  segregation,  of  a  return  to  the 
cultivation  of  the  soil;  that  though  only  a  certain 
number  of  Jews  could  be  benefited  by  a  segregation, 
the  whole  Jewish  race  would  profit  by  it;  that  it  was 
necessary  to  cultivate  the  Hebrew  language;  and, 
finally,  that  his  own  scheme  provided  only  for  a 
half-way  house  to  Palestine — very  much  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  East  African  scheme  was  finally  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  Zionist  Congress.*0 

Nor  were  there  wanting  well-wishers  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  cause  among  Christians,  who,  in  different  ways 
and  from  diverse  motives,  had  arrived  at  conclu¬ 
sions  similar  to  those  of  the  pre-Herzlite  Jewish 
nationalists.  It  is  even  said  that  Napoleon  had 
some  such  project  in  mind,  for  he  inserted  in 
the  Moniteur  Universelle  of  1799  a  proclamation 
inviting  the  Jews  of  Asia  and  Africa  to  place  them¬ 
selves  under  his  leadership  for  the  purpose  of  re¬ 
establishing  ancient  Jerusalem.21  It  is  possible  that 
the  romantic  side  of  the  idea  appealed  to  him;  per¬ 
haps  it  was  only  an  attempt  to  win  the  Eastern  Jews 
to  his  cause,  as  he  was  to  win  many  of  those  in  the 
West  by  calling  the  “  Sanhedrin  ”  together  in  Paris. 
It  is  asserted  that  at  a  later  time  Bismarck  enter- 


39 


ZIONISM 


tained  similar  projects,"  though  the  evidence  is 
not  at  all  clear  on  the  subject.  But  that  the  re-estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine  might  become 
a  matter  of  general  European  interest  was  not  with¬ 
out  its  advocates  during  the  first  half  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century.  The  French  Jew  Joseph  Salvador, 
the  historian  of  the  Second  Jewish  Commonwealth 
and  of  the  Pentateuchal  Legislation,  had  publicly 
advocated  the  calling  of  a  European  Congress  for 
the  purpose  of  reinstating  his  people  in  their  old 
home,  an  idea  that  is  supposed  to  have  fired  the 
mind  of  Disraeli,  who,  in  his  novels  Tancred , 
Alroy,  and  Coningsby ,  gives  unwitting  support 
to  the  theory  by  his  insistence  upon  the  value  of 
racial  endurance.  In  one  passage  he  goes  even 
beyond  this,  and  speaks  the  language  of  the  most 
modern  of  Zionists  in  the  words  he  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  the  high  priest  in  addressing  Alroy: 
11  You  ask  me  what  I  wish :  my  answer  is,  the  Land 
of  Promise.  You  ask  me  what  I  wish :  my  answer  is, 
Jerusalem.  You  ask  me  what  I  wish :  my  answer  is, 
the  Temple,  all  we  have  forfeited,  all  we  have 
•yearned  after,  all  for  which  we  have  fought,  our 
beauteous  country,  our  holy  creed,  our  simple 
manners,  and  our  ancient  customs.”  23  An  English¬ 
man,  Hollingsworth  by  name,  went  still  further. 

40 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 

In  1852  24  he  published  a  pamphlet  wherein  he  ad¬ 
vocated  the  establishment  of  a  Jewish  state,  urging 
it  as  a  matter  of  much  moment  to  Great  Britain,  for 
the  purpose  of  safeguarding  the  overland  route  to 
India. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  sometimes  other  con¬ 
siderations  formed  an  unwelcome  background  to 
similar  proposals.  In  some  quarters  the  solution  of 
the  question  assumed  a  purely  theological  aspect, 
which  required  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine 
as  the  premonition  of  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
The  whole  work  of  Laurence  Oliphant,  his  prac¬ 
tical  procedure  in  Palestine,  his  own  settlement  near 
Haifa,  was  dominated  and  vitiated  by  such  theories. 
It  is  evident  that  the  Jews  of  the  West  could  feel 
little  sympathy  for  these  schemes  of  salvation, 
based,  as  they  were,  upon  Christological  theorems. 
They  naturally  looked  askance  at  their  authors, 
though  recognizing  the  perfect  good  faith  of  such 
real  friends  of  Israel  in  Exile.  Unfortunately,  they 
closed  their  ears  also  to  appeals  made  to  them  by 
other  and  quite  disinterested  Christian  writers,  in 
whose  analysis  of  their  ills  theology  played  no  part 
at  all.  I  shall  mention  three  in  particular. 

Among  the  plays  written  by  that  great  French 
psychological  dramatist  Alexandre  Dumas  fils, 

41 


ZIONISM 


there  is  one  entitled  La  femme  de  Claude.  In  this 
play  a  Jewish  character,  Daniel,  represents  devotion 
to  race  in  contrast  to  the  devotion  to  science  of  one 
of  the  principal  characters,  Claude.  Daniel  char¬ 
acterizes  the  hope  animating  him  in  regard  to  the 
future  of  his  people  in  the  following  words : 

We  have  come  to  an  epoch  when  each  race  has  resolved  to 
claim  and  to  have  as  its  own  its  soil,  its  home,  its  language,  its 
temple.  It  is  long  enough  since  we  Jews  have  been  dispossessed 
of  all  that — we  have  been  forced  to  insinuate  ourselves  into  the 
interstices  of  the  nations,  and  there  we  have  taken  up  the  interests 
of  governments,  of  societies,  of  individuals.  This  is  a  great  deal, 
yet  it  is  not  enough.  People  still  believe  that  persecution  has 
dispersed  us;  it  has  merely  spread  us  over  the  world.  .  .  .  We 
do  not  want  to  be  a  group  any  more,  we  want  to  be  a  people,  a 
nation.  The  ideal  name  does  not  suffice  us;  the  fixed  territorial 
fatherland  is  again  necessary  for  us,  and  I  go  to  seek  it  and  to 
obtain  there  our  legalized  birth  certificate.29 

More  practical  and  more  definite,  but  with  equal 
warmth,  the  Swiss  Henry  Dunant,  the  founder  of 
the  Red  Cross  and  the  inspirer  of  the  Geneva  Con¬ 
vention,  tried,  between  the  years  1863  and  1876, 
to  awaken  interest  among  the  Jews  for  the  coloniza¬ 
tion  of  Palestine.  In  vain  he  knocked  at  the  doors 
of  the  Alliance  Israelite  in  1863;  in  vain  he  ap¬ 
pealed  to  the  Jews  in  Berlin  in  1866,  and  finally  to 
the  Anglo-Jewish  Association  in  London.  He  even 

42 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


went  to  the  length  of  founding  an  International 
Palestine  Society,  and  in  1876  a  Syrian  and  Pales¬ 
tinian  Colonization  Society.28  The  Jews  of  Western 
Europe  were  still  wrapt  up  in  the  seeming  security 
that  complete  legal  emancipation  had  brought  them. 
In  a  few  years  they  were  to  be  awakened  with  a 
rude  hand  and  with  a  violent  jar. 

No  Christian  and  perhaps  no  Jewish  writer  has 
struck  the  high  note  of  pathos  and  enthusiasm  as 
has  George  Eliot  in  her  novel  Daniel  Deronda 
(1876).  Into  the  mouth  of  one  of  her  heroes,  the 
representative  of  the  new  Judaic  nationalism,  she 
places  words  that  show  how  deeply  she  had  pen¬ 
etrated  into  the  Jewish  soul : 

When  it  is  rational  to  say,  “  I  know  not  my  father  or  my 
mother;  let  my  children  be  aliens  unto  me,  that  no  prayer  of 
mine  may  touch  them,”  then  will  it  be  rational  for  the  Jew  to 
say,  “  I  will  seek  to  know  no  difference  between  me  and  the 
Gentile;  I  will  not  cherish  the  prophetic  consciousness  of  our 
nationality.”  Let  the  Hebrew  cease  to  be,  and  let  all  his  memorials 
be  antiquarian  trifles,  dead  as  the  wall-paintings  of  a  conjectured 
race.  Yet  let  his  child  learn  by  rote  the  speech  of  the  Greek, 
where  he  adjures  his  fellow-citizens  by  the  bravery  of  those  who 
fought  foremost  at  Marathon;  let  him  learn  to  say,  That  was 
noble  in  the  Greek,  that  is  the  spirit  of  an  immortal  nation !  But 
the  Jew  has  no  memories  that  bind  him  to  action;  let  him  laugh 
that  his  nation  is  degraded  from  a  nation;  let  him  hold  the 
monuments  of  his  law  which  carried  within  its  frame  the  breath 

43 


ZIONISM 


of  social  justice,  of  charity,  and  of  household  sanctities;  let  him 
hold  the  energy  of  the  prophets,  the  patient  care  of  the  masters, 
the  fortitude  of  martyred  generations,  as  mere  stuff  for  a  pro¬ 
fessorship.  .  .  . 

In  the  multitude  of  the  ignorant  on  three  continents  who 
observe  our  rites  and  make  the  confession  of  Divine  Unity,  the 
soul  of  Judaism  is  not  dead.  Revive  the  organic  center:  let  the 
unity  of  Israel  which  has  made  the  growth  and  form  of  its 
religion  be  an  outward  reality.  Looking  forward  to  a  land  and 
a  polity,  our  dispersed  people  in  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  may 
share  the  dignity  of  a  national  life  which  has  a  voice  among  the 
peoples  of  the  East  and  the  West — which  will  plant  the  wisdom 
and  skill  of  our  race  so  that  it  may  be,  as  of  old,  a  medium  of 
transmission  and  understanding.  Let  that  come  to  pass,  and  the 
living  warmth  will  spread  to  the  weak  extremities  of  Israel,  and 
superstition  will  vanish,  not  in  the  lawlessness  of  the  renegade, 
but  in  the  illumination  of  great  facts  which  widen  feeling,  and 
make  all  knowledge  alive  as  the  young  offspring  of  beloved 
memories.  .  .  . 

There  is  a  store  of  wisdom  among  us  to  found  a  new  Jewish 
polity,  grand,  simple,  just,  like  the  old — a  republic  where  there  is 
equality  of  protection.  .  .  .  Then  our  race  shall  have  an  organic 
center,  a  heart  and  a  brain  to  watch  and  guide  and  execute ;  the 
outraged  Jew  shall  have  a  defense  in  the  court  of  nations,  as  the 
outraged  Englishman  or  American.  And  the  world  will  gain  as 
Israel  gains.  For  there  will  be  a  community  in  the  van  of  the 
East  which  carries  the  culture  and  the  sympathies  of  every  great 
nation  in  its  bosom;  and  there  will  be  a  land  set  for  a  halting- 
place  of  enmities,  a  neutral  ground  for  the  East  as  Belgium  is 
for  the  West.  Difficulties?  I  know  there  are  difficulties.  But  let 

44 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


the  spirit  of  sublime  achievement  move  in  the  great  among  our 
people  and  the  work  will  begin.  .  .  . 

Let  the  torch  of  visible  community  be  lit!  Let  the  reason  of 
Israel  disclose  itself  in  a  great  outward  deed,  let  there  be  another 
great  migration,  another  choosing  of  Israel  to  be  a  nationality, 
whose  members  may  still  stretch  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  even 
as  the  sons  of  England  and  Germany,  whom  enterprise  carries 
afar,  but  who  still  have  a  national  hearth  and  a  tribunal  of 
national  opinion.  .  .  .  Let  the  central  fire  be  kindled  again,  and 
the  light  will  reach  afar.  The  degraded  and  scorned  of  our  race 
will  learn  to  think  of  their  sacred  land,  not  as  a  place  for  sacred 
beggary,  to  await  death  in  loathsome  idleness,  but  as  a  republic 
where  the  Jewish  spirit  manifests  itself  in  a  new  order  founded 
on  the  old,  purified,  enriched  by  the  experience  our  greatest  sons 
have  gathered  from  the  life  of  the  ages.  .  .  .  The  sons  of  Judah 
have  to  choose,  that  God  may  again  choose  them.  The  Messianic 
time  is  the  time  when  Israel  shall  will  the  planting  of  the  national 
ensign.  .  .  .  Let  us  help  to  will  our  own  better  future  and  the 
better  future  of  the  world — not  renounce  our  higher  gift,  and  say, 
“  Let  us  be  as  if  we  were  not  among  the  populations,”  but  choose 
our  full  heritage,  claim  the  brotherhood  of  our  nation,  and  carry 
it  into  a  new  brotherhood  with  the  nations  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
vision  is  there:  it  will  be  fulfilled.27 

Three  years  later,  in  an  essay  entitled  The 
Modern  Hep!  Hep!  Hep / 28  George  Eliot  re¬ 
newed  her  appeal  to  the  Jewish  people : 

There  is  still  a  great  function  for  the  steadfastness  of  the 
Jew:  not  that  he  should  shut  out  the  utmost  illumination  which 
knowledge  can  throw  on  his  national  history,  but  that  he  should 

4  45 


ZIONISM 


cherish  the  store  of  inheritance  which  that  history  has  left  him. 
Every  Jew  should  be  conscious  that  he  is  one  of  a  multitude 
possessing  common  objects  of  piety  in  the  immortal  achievements 
and  immortal  sorrows  of  ancestors  who  have  transmitted  to  them 
a  physical  and  mental  type  strong  enough,  eminent  enough  in 
faculties,  pregnant  enough  with  peculiar  promise,  to  constitute  a 
new,  beneficent  individuality  among  the  nations,  and,  by  con¬ 
futing  the  traditions  of  scorn,  nobly  avenge  the  wrongs  done  to 
their  Fathers. 

It  is  surprising  that  this  appeal  failed  to  awaken 
much  enthusiasm  in  the  many  Jewish  readers  of  the 
novelist.  The  chord  of  passionate  sentiment  seemed 
to  have  been  struck  in  vain;  the  time  was  not  yet 
to  mobilize  the  conscience  of  the  Jewish  people.  In 
one  or  two  cases,  it  is  true,  intellectual  assent  was 
given  to  the  theory  developed  in  Daniel  Deronda . 
A  noted  English  Review  had  this  to  say  at  the  hand 
of  a  Jewish  reviewer:  u  And  Mordecai’s  views 
of  the  resumption  of  the  soil  of  the  Holy  Land  by 
the  holy  people  are  the  only  logical  position  of  a 
Jew  who  desires  that  the  long  travail  of  the  ages 
shall  not  end  in  the  total  disappearance  of  the  race.” 
And  a  German  Jewish  scholar  of  the  highest  repute 
wrote :  “  All  these  objections  [that  Israel’s  final 

mission  is  to  be  found  in  the  dispersion]  do  not 
touch  this  work  of  art;  if  we  look  closely,  not  even 
its  central  idea.  For  the  establishment  of  a  political 

46 


THE  PRE-HERZLITES 


center  is  not  intended  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the 
Jewish  people  on  the  earth,  but  rather  to  elevate 
and  support  the  actions  of  the  dispersed  people,  so 
that  they  become  conscious  of  belonging  to  a  unified 
and  acknowledged  community.” 

The  new  life  that  was  fermenting  Russian  Jewry 
had  not  yet  reached  the  West.  Even  the  great 
exodus  that  commenced  in  1882  did  not  confound 
the  prophets  of  peace ;  the  hands  of  Jewish  men  and 
women  were  filled  with  the  immediate  work  of  the 
hour,  and  few  had  the  opportunity — if  they  had  the 
desire — to  project  relief  on  large  ajid  noble  lines.31 

[Notes,  pp.  217-220] 


47 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 

One  of  the  consequences  of  the  new  interest 
shown  among  the  Jews  of  Russia  in  the  larger 
aspect  of  the  Jewish  question,  and  at  the  same  time 
its  most  valuable  fomenter  and  fosterer,  was  the 
attempt  made  to  resettle  the  Promised  Land.  This 
movement  Palestinewards  had  its  recrudescence  at 
the  very  moment  when  the  more  theoretic  solution 
proposed  for  the  alleviation  of  the  ills  from  which 
the  Jews  were  suffering  was  engaging  the  mind  and 
the  heart  of  those  of  them  settled  in  the  East  End 
of  Europe.  It  thus  fell  upon  fruitful  ground;  the 
theoretic  and  the  practical  met  in  one  common 
effort. 

All  through  the  Middle  Ages  communities  of 
Jews  had  lived  in  various  parts  of  Palestine,  making 
a  brave  fight  against  political  and  economic  odds, 
which,  from  time  to  time,  threatened  to  become  too 
strong  for  resistance.  The  varying  vicissitudes  of 
the  country’s  history  had  prevented  any  concerted 
action  on  their  own  part.  They  had  been  equally 
miserable  under  Arab,  Christian,  and  Turkish 
dominion,  and  yet  they  had  persisted.  Ever  and 

48 


THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 

anon  their  numbers  had  been  increased  by  indi¬ 
vidual  and  collective  additions,  most  notably  from 
Russia  and  Galicia.  They  had  settled  chiefly  in 
Jerusalem  and  in  one  or  two  cities  of  Galilee,  such 
as  Safed  and  Tiberias,  where  Cabalistic  activity  had 
formed  an  additional  magnet.  The  connection  of 
these  communities  with  those  of  their  brethren  in 
other  lands  had  not  been  intimate,  and  had  been 
preserved  largely  by  the  collectors  of  alms  who 
gathered,  in  Europe  and  later  in  America  also, 
sustenance  for  the  Talmudic  and  Cabalistic  schools 
in  Palestine.  Two  events  were  destined  to  work  a 
change  in  these  relations. 

In  the  year  1840  a  Capuchin  friar  in  Damascus, 
Father  Thomas,  disappeared.  At  the  instigation 
of  an  Italian,  Ratti  Menton,  who  had  been  ap¬ 
pointed  French  consul,  the  blame  for  his  disappear¬ 
ance  was  laid  upon  the  Jews,  and  a  case  of  “  ritual 
murder  ”  was  made  out.  In  conjunction  with  the 
Catholic  clergy,  the  instigators  were  successful; 
many  Jews  were  tortured  and  imprisoned,  some 
even  meeting  their  death.  The  tale  of  woe  reached 
Europe,  led  to  many  meetings  of  protest,  and  in¬ 
duced  Sir  Moses  Montefiore,  Adolphe  Cremieux, 
and  Salomon  Munk  to  journey  to  Mehemet  Ali  of 
under  whose  power  Syria  at  that  time  was 

49 


ZIONISM 


governed,  and  to  obtain  redress  from  him.  It  was 
at  Damascus  that  these  public-spirited  men  first 
became  acquainted  with  their  Eastern  brethren,  and 
saw  the  real  tale  of  their  suffering. 

Twenty  years  later,  in  i860,  Damascus  was  once 
again  to  focus  the  attention  of  Europe.  The 
Druses  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  city  had  fallen 
upon  their  ancient  enemies,  the  Maronite  Chris¬ 
tians,  had  massacred  many,  and  had  pillaged  their 
dwellings.  The  Jews  were  again  falsely  implicated 
in  these  troubles. 

The  attention  of  the  world  being  in  this  manner 
directed  towards  Palestine  and  Syria,  the  Jews  in 
Europe  began  to  see  the  duty  that  lay  upon  them  in 
connection  with  their  brethren  in  the  nearer  East 
and  to  feel  the  bond  that  had  held  so  loosely  in  times 
gone  by.  This  new  interest  in  Palestine  is  connected 
with  the  names  of  three  men,  Albert  Cohn,  Charles 
Netter,  and  Sir  Moses  Montefiore.  That  their 
interest  was  more  than  merely  eleemosynary  can 
fairly  be  deduced  from  the  utterances  and  writings 
of  the  first  two,  who,  in  conjunction  with  Adolphe 
Cremieux,  later  a  Minister  of  Justice  in  the  French 
Cabinet  of  1870,  became  the  chief  founders  of 
the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  in  i860.  Salo¬ 
mon  Munk  had  as  early  as  1 840  expressed  the  wish, 

50 


THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 


“  Would  that  the  sad  Damascus  incident  might  at 
least  serve  to  make  us  take  cognizance  of  our  dis¬ 
organized  condition,  which,  though  mournful  to 
contemplate,  is  unfortunately  a  fact.”  1  In  view  of 
later  developments  in  the  conduct  of  the  Alliance 
and  of  the  distinctly  anti-national  tendencies  in¬ 
duced  by  it,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  its  founders 
at  least  were  animated  by  a  different  spirit.  Its 
very  name  “  Universelle  ”  is  warranty  sufficient 
that  its  outlook  was  wide  and  transcended  the  some¬ 
what  narrow  horizon  of  the  French  Jews.  Indeed, 
the  founders  had  based  their  action  upon  a  senti¬ 
ment  expressed  in  the  following  words:  “All 
other  important  faiths  are  represented  in  the  world 
by  nations;  that  is  to  say,  they  are  incarnated  in 
governments  especially  interested  in  them  and 
officially  authorized  to  represent  them  and  speak 
for  them  alone.  Our  faith  alone  lacks  this  im¬ 
portant  advantage ;  it  is  represented  neither  by  a 
state  nor  by  a  society,  nor  does  it  occupy  a  clearly 
defined  territory.”  2  In  his  report  on  the  Mikweh 
Israel  Agricultural  School  near  Jaffa,  Charles 
Netter,  its  real  founder,  wrote  to  the  Central  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Alliance  at  Paris : 

You  are  preparing  an  asylum  for  whole  populations,  who 
perhaps  to-morrow  will  be  forced  to  flee  en  masse  because  of  the 

51 


ZIONISM 


fanaticism  of  the  Greek  victorious  over  the  crescent.  .  .  .  You 
will  accomplish  the  pacific  conquest  of  this  sacred  land  where — ■ 
neither  Orthodox  nor  Reformer  has  forgotten  it — the  Supreme 
Being  was  invoked  by  our  fathers,  while  the  rest  of  the  world 
was  plunged  in  paganism.  ...  In  this  wise  you  will  gain  the 
Holy  Land.  The  magnitude  of  the  task  need  not  frighten  you. 
That  which  appears  to  be  a  revery  to-day  may  to-morrow  become 
a  reality.3 

There  were  further  tokens  that  even  in  very 
Orthodox  circles  a  new  conception  of  the  role  Pales¬ 
tine  was  to  play  in  the  future  had  gradually  asserted 
itself,  that  the  hand  of  man  was  necessary  for  the 
proper  achievement  of  the  purposes  of  Providence. 
In  a  letter  to  Albert  Cohn,  Samuel  David  Luzzatto 
of  Padua,  the  learned  scholar,  critic,  and  writer, 
wrote  in  1854,  “Palestine  must  be  peopled  by 
Jews  and  tilled  by  them,  in  order  that  it  flourish 
economically  and  agriculturally,  and  take  on  beauty 
and  glory.”  But  perhaps  no  one  insisted  upon  the 
changed  outlook  which  circumstances  had  com¬ 
pelled  as  did  Hirsch  Kalischer,  rabbi  in  Thorn, 
Prussia.  The  title  of  his  work,  Emunah  Yesharah , 
published  in  i860,  shows  that  he  is  more  concerned 
with  religious  dogmas  than  with  the  practical  de¬ 
mands  made  by  these  dogmas.  He  concedes  that 
a  new  interpretation  must  be  given  to  the  older 
ideas,  that  the  divine  purpose  of  the  future  in- 

52 


THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 

gathering  of  the  Jews  must  come  about  in  a  natural 
way,  and  that  the  Messianic  idea  can  become  a  fact 
only  in  the  slow  working  of  historic  events. 
Kalischer’s  book  is,  in  a  measure,  a  complete  break 
with  the  past;  it  represents  a  more  human  rendition 
of  the  old  hope  and  promise,  a  change  from  the 
former  policy  of  laisser-aller  to  one  of  positive 
action  and  forward  help.  The  first  step  in  that 
forward  policy  was  to  be  the  colonization  of  Pales¬ 
tine. 

The  ideas  expressed  by  Kalischer  in  his  Emunah 
Yesharah,  and  completed  by  more  practical  sug¬ 
gestions  in  a  little  pamphlet  entitled  Derishat 
Ziyyon,  published  in  1862,  in  which  the  definite 
founding  of  a  society  for  the  colonization  of  Pales¬ 
tine  was  proposed,  were  the  first  rays  of  the  new 
light  that  penetrated  from  Eastern  European  to 
Western  Jewry.  Hess  thankfully  records  the  incite¬ 
ment  he  received  from  this  Orthodox  source;  but 
while  Hess  based  his  argumentation  upon  social  and 
economic  considerations,  Kalischer  started  from 
religious  motives.  It  is  evident  that  though  Hess 
might  appeal  to  the  reasoned  judgment  of  choicer 
spirits,  Kalischer  would  have  the  ear  of  the  multi¬ 
tude.  It  was  through  Kalischer,  then,  that  both  in 
Germany  and  in  Russia  a  certain  zeal  was  en- 

58 


ZIONISM 


gendered  for  that  which,  in  later  times,  has  been 
called  “  practical  work  ”  in  Palestine. 

In  fact,  it  was  Kalischer’s  written  word  that 
brought  about  the  first  attempt  made  by  the  Jews 
to  redeem  the  Land  of  Promise.  He  was  the  in- 
spirer  of  Charles  Netter,  under  whose  auspices  the 
Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  founded  the  Mikweh 
Israel  Agricultural  School  referred  to  above.  It 
was  a  strange  irony  of  fate,  still  more  pronounced 
when  we  remember  that  a  position  in  connection 
with  the  school  was  offered  to  Kalischer,  which, 
however,  he  was  unable  to  accept.  The  school  was 
intended  to  train  scientific  agriculturalists,  who  were 
to  lay  the  foundations  for  future  colonization.  The 
institution,  great  in  promise,  has  not  played  the 
part  its  founders  laid  out  for  it.  The  leaders  that 
followed  Netter  and  his  co-founders  in  directing  the 
policy  of  the  Alliance  gradually  moved  out  of  touch 
with  the  mainsprings  of  Jewish  life.  It  is  the  merit 
of  the  Alliance  that  it  was  the  first  Jewish  body  to 
apply  itself  seriously  to  the  education  of  the  Jewish 
masses  in  the  Orient,  but  in  the  course  of  time  it 
turned  its  back  upon  the  wider  and  higher  aspira¬ 
tions  of  the  Jewish  people.  The  young  men  who 
proceeded  from  the  school  near  Jaffa  emigrated  to 
Egypt,  to  the  United  States,  to  Canada :  they  have 

54 


THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 

been  of  little  service  to  Palestine  and  to  the  Jewish 
cause  there.  Instead  of  producing  agriculturalists, 
the  school  has  trained  up  agronomic  specialists,  who 
naturally  could  find  little  field  for  their  activity  in 
a  country  so  backward  as  Palestine. 

Nor  were  the  early  attempts  at  actual  coloniza¬ 
tion  any  more  successful.  It  is  true  that  a  society 
for  this  purpose  had  been  formed  at  Frankfort-on- 
the-Oder,  and  that  in  the  early  “  seventies  ”  of  the 
nineteenth  century  a  settlement  had  been  effected 
at  Petah  Tikwah  near  Jaffa,  and  again,  by  Kalischer 
himself,  near  the  Sea  of  Tiberias.  But  they  were 
sporadic  and  probably  unintelligent  experiments, 
valuable  rather  as  indications  of  a  real  interest  in 
the  matter  than  as  successful  practical  accomplish¬ 
ments: 

As  a  concomitant  of  the  revived  national 
sentiment  we  must  regard  the  awakened  interest  in 
the  Hebrew  language.  It  is  wrong  to  suppose  that 
Hebrew  had  ever  become  a  dead  language,  in  the 
full  acceptation  of  that  term.  It  is  true  that  it  was 
no  longer  used  as  the  ordinary  means  of  personal 
intercommunication;  that  in  the  countries  of  mid- 
and  Western  Europe  and  America  its  place  had 
been  usurped  by  the  tongues  of  the  various  lands 
in  which  the  Jews  dwelt,  and  that  in  Eastern 

55 


ZIONISM 


Europe  it  had  been  superseded  by  the  Judeo-Ger- 
man,  or  “  Yiddish,”  a  dialect  based  upon  a  sub¬ 
stratum  of  Middle  Age  High  German  with  a  large 
admixture  of  Hebrew.  But  it  had  persisted  as  the 
official  language  of  the  Synagogue  and  as  the  means 
of  literary  intercourse  among  scholars.  Its  later 
development  has,  of  course,  been  retarded  by 
the  fact  that  this  development  proceeded  among 
writers  and  not  among  “  livers.”  The  Hebrew  of 
the  Italian  school  kept  too  rigidly  to  the  forms  and 
expressions  found  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Bible;  that 
of  the  German  Jews  suffered  from  being  too  often 
a  mere  translation  from  the  German;  and  that 
of  the  Russian  Jews  was  largely  newspaper- 
Hebrew,  and,  written  in  haste,  was  not  over-scru¬ 
pulous  in  its  adherence  to  standards.  Xhe  breath 
of  real  life  was  wanting.4 

Now,  language  is  one  of  the  most  potent  spurs 
to  national  development.  Our  modern  times  have 
seen  striking  examples  of  the  rejuvenation  of  lan¬ 
guages  supposed  to  be  dead  or  cultivated  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  learned  examination.  One  recalls 
to  mind  the  revival  of  Cymric  in  Wales,  of  Gaelic 
in  Ireland,  of  Bulgarian  in  the  Balkan  peninsula. 
The  first  of  these  was  to  all  appearance  dead,  and 
might  have  gone  the  way  of  its  sister  dialect  in 

56 


THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 

Cornwall,  but  for  the  resolute  attitude  of  a  few 
energetic  Welshmen,  who  have  made  it  chief  among 
the  forces  to  save  Welsh  culture  from  shipwreck 
and  annihilation.  The  resuscitation  of  Gaelic,  we 
are  told  by  unprejudiced  observers,  has  done  more 
for  the  betterment  of  conditions  in  Ireland  than 
the  speeches  of  a  thousand  agitators.5  And  the 
recrudescence  of  Bulgarian  has  proved  a  powerful 
weapon  in  the  reconstruction  of  the  Bulgarian  state. 

Hebrew,  as  a  real  living  speech,  had  a  harder 
battle  to  fight  than  any  of  these.  The  Jews  who 
lived  in  scattered  communities  had  naturally  little 
use  for  a  common  language  different  from  the  one 
used  by  the  people  among  whom  they  lived.  Even 
in  the  synagogue  service,  the  vernacular  threatened 
to  take  the  place  of  the  sacred  tongue.  In  the 
denser  and  larger  agglomerations  of  Eastern 
Europe,  Judeo-German  had  so  completely  asserted 
itself  as  to  leave  neither  room  nor  time  for  the 
cultivation  of  Hebrew;  while  in  the  Semitic  East 
the  Spanish  of  Castile,  brought  thither  by  the  exiles 
from  the  Iberian  peninsula  in  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries,  acquired  almost  the  same 
standing  among  the  Sefardim  that  Judeo-German 
has  among  the  Ashkenazim.  Indeed,  Judeo-Ger¬ 
man  had  so  gained  the  ascendancy  among  its  adepts, 

57 


ZIONISM 


and  had  produced  so  prolific  a  literature,  that  there 
was  danger  of  its  becoming  a  national  tongue  in  its 
own  turn ;  and  the  fact  that  Hebrew  was  the  lashon 
ha-kodesh,  “  the  holy  tongue,”  predisposed  a  cer¬ 
tain  section  of  Orthodox  Jews  to  look  with  scant 
affection  upon  its  attempted  use  in  the  concerns  of 
everyday  life.  This  distaste  was  increased  by  the 
knowledge  that  some  of  the  protagonists  in  the 
revival  of  Hebrew  were  not  known  for  their  adher¬ 
ence  to  Orthodox  standards,  and  the  movement  was 
believed  to  lead  away  from  an  insistence  upon  these 
standards. 

It  is  agreed  that  a  common  language  is  a  necessity 
for  the  corporate  existence  of  any  body  of  men. 
Jewish  tradition  recognizes  this.  An  ancient  Mid¬ 
rash,  recapitulating  the  merits  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt  upon  the  basis  of  which  they  were  found 
worthy  of  redemption  by  the  Almighty,  mentions  as 
one  of  these  merits  the  fact  that  “  they  had  not  for¬ 
saken  their  national  speech.”  6  Many  of  the  new 
generation,  who  had  been  fired  by  the  new  national 
idea,  eagerly  took  up  the  cultivation  of  the  ancient 
tongue.  Societies  were  established  and  text-books 
written  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  a  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  by  a  more  natural  method  than  the 
one  hitherto  employed.  But  it  was  especially  the 

58 


THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 

new  interest  in  Palestine  and  the  founding  there  of 
Jewish  colonies  that  gave  a  strong  fillip  to  the  move¬ 
ment.  Coming  from  various  countries,  the  col¬ 
onists  found  it  necessary  to  develop  a  means  of 
common  intercourse.  In  addition  to  the  senti¬ 
mental  considerations,  which  naturally  served  as  an 
incentive, — the  Jewish  soil  was  so  intimately  con¬ 
nected  with  the  language  of  the  Jews, — practical 
motives  made  the  demand  imperative,  especially  in 
the  field  of  education.  The  only  modern  schools  to 
which  the  Jews  of  Palestine  could  send  their 
children  had  been  founded  by  Jewish  societies  in 
France,  Austria,  England,  and  Germany;  and  as 
these  schools  made  the  language  of  the  country  of 
their  origin  the  vehicle  of  instruction,  the  children 
of  one  and  the  same  family  ran  the  risk  of  becoming 
polyglot  collectively  but  individually  strangers  to 
each  other.  Only  gradually,  and  after  much  in¬ 
sistence,  did  the  idea  make  its  way,  that  the  only 
rational  course  to  pursue  was  to  take  Hebrew  for 
this  purpose.  And,  in  very  truth,  the  Jewish 
schools  in  Palestine  are  becoming  the  training 
ground  for  the  renaissance  of  Hebrew  as  a  living 
tongue  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term. 

[Notes,  pp.  220-221] 


59 


CHAPTER  III 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCI¬ 
PATION 

The  various  influences  which  have  been  detailed 
were  brought  to  a  head  by  the  anti-Semitic  move¬ 
ment  of  1 8  8 1  and  the  following  years.  As  we  have 
seen,  it  struck  at  the  most  cherished  acquisition  of 
the  Jews  in  Germany  and  Austria,  the  social  posi¬ 
tion  which  they  supposed  had  been  conferred  upon 
them  by  their  emancipation.  It  is  hardly  to  their 
blame  that  they  imagined  that  the  granting  of  rights 
would  end  the  eighteen  hundred  years  of  mar¬ 
tyrdom.  Was  it  not  an  era  of  constitutions,  of  con¬ 
ferences,  of  formal  paper  agreements?  Had  not 
the  Berlin  Conference  of  1878  secured  equitable 
treatment  for  the  Jews  in  the  newly-formed  Balkan 
states  ?  However  difficult  the  situation  might  be  at 
times  for  the  Jews  in  Central  Europe,  in  Russia  the 
difficulty  became  a  tragedy.  For,  under  a  civiliza¬ 
tion  that  was  both  in  form  and  in  fact  less  advanced 
than  the  civilization  of  the  rest  of  Europe,  anti- 
Semitism  developed  into  pogroms  and  into  an 
economic  oppression  that  drove  hundreds  of  thou- 

60 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

sands  out  of  the  country  in  search  of  new  homes. 
No  one  can  measure  the  sum  of  human  misery  that 
has  been  heaped  up  there  consequent  on  the  passing 
of  the  May  Laws  in  1 8  8 1  and  the  administrative 
regulations  that  followed  them,  promiscuously  but 
only  too  quickly.  Nor  was  it  different  in  Roumania. 
The  paper-rights  of  the  Jews  there,  forced  upon  the 
government  in  1878,  had  remained — as  they  re¬ 
main  to  this  day — a  dead  letter.  Thousands  had 
been  forced  to  quit  the  country,  fleeing  in  despair 
to  save  the  little  life  that  had  been  left  in  them. 
To  these  two  must  be  added  Galicia,  where  Aus¬ 
trian  anti-Semitism,  with  more  refined  methods,  had 
instituted  economic  pogroms  quite  as  effective  as 
the  physical  ones  in  near-by  Russia. 

Of  the  various  parties  in  Jewry  who  tried,  by 
one  means  or  another,  to  weather  the  storm  that 
had  broken  in  upon  them,  few  understood  its  real 
significance,  or  saw  that  the  real  significance  of  the 
whole  business  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  present  state 
of  the  Jews  was  more  parlous  than  the  past,  in  that 
the  Jewish  position  had  grown  worse,  while  the 
world  had  progressed  in  its  general  ideas  of  inter- 
communal  and  international  comity.  Some  of 
these  few  were  to  be  found  in  Russia — men  who, 
like  M.  L.  Lilienblum,  were  keener-sighted  and 

61 


5 


ZIONISM 


longer-headed  than  their  brethren,  and  who  scented 
the  danger  in  the  air,  and  as  early  as  1870  sounded 
the  alarm  in  the  Jewish  camp.  Their  words,  how¬ 
ever,  fell  upon  barren  ground,  perhaps  because 
they  were  alarmists  and  had  no  constructive  policy 
to  offer.  It  needed  a  practical  lesson  not  only 
to  teach  them  the  truth,  but  to  set  them  to  think¬ 
ing.  In  fact,  they  began  to  think  furiously.  The 
lesson  came  in  the  years  of  terror  1881  and  1882. 
Happily,  in  the  advance  guard  stood  a  man  like  Leo 
Pinsker,  a  physician,  who,  towards  the  end  of  the 
year  1882,  sent  a  warning  note  ringing  through 
Russian  Jewry,  which  is  still  heard  by  all  those  who 
seek  a  final  healing  of  the  old  complaint. 

Pinsker  had  grown  up  in  the  ideas  prevalent  dur¬ 
ing  the  mid-decades  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and 
he  believed,  together  with  his  fellow-intellectuals, 
that  the  ideas  of  world-wide  cosmopolitanism  and 
internationalism  were  the  surest  guarantees  for  the 
welfare  of  the  Jews.  From  these  reveries,  as  he 
himself  relates,  he  was  awakened  rudely  by  the  ex¬ 
cesses  of  the  early  “  eighties.”  He  was  an  eye-wit¬ 
ness  of  the  havoc  created  by  the  May  Laws  of  1881. 
Although  he  was  advanced  in  years,  his  soul  was 
touched  to  the  quick.  Using  an  interval  in  the 
forward  movement  of  the  scourge,  he  sat  down 

62 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 


to  study,  not  only  the  pathology  of  his  own  and  his 
brethren’s  status,  but  also  the  necessary  therapeu¬ 
tics.  Whether  Pinsker  was  aware  or  not  of  the 
earlier  attempt  of  Hess  seems  uncertain.  Though 
his  conclusions  agree  in  the  main  with  those  of  his 
predecessor,  he  formulates  them  with  greater  pre¬ 
cision,  but  with  no  less  warmth  of  feeling.  The 
root  of  the  evil  from  which  the  Jews  are  suffer¬ 
ing  he  finds  to  be  the  fact  that,  since  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  the  various  peoples  and  rulers  have 
never  had  to  deal  with  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  but  only 
with  individual  settlements  of  Jews.  The  blame 
for  this  lies  primarily  at  the  door  of  the  Jews  them¬ 
selves.  They  have  not  only  never  felt  the  necessity 
for  national  concentration,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
have  actively  denied  that  necessity.  The  conse¬ 
quence  has  been  that,  having  attempted  to  commit 
national  suicide,  they  have  been  taken  at  their  word, 
have  been  regarded  as  a  dead  nation — and  treated 
as  such.  They  have  walked  the  earth  as  a  ghost, 
and,  as  all  ghosts  do,  have  inspired  fear  and  dislike. 
In  addition,  Jews  have  suffered  from  being  strangers 
in  a  double  sense :  strangers  in  the  lands  to  which 
they  have  been  driven,  and  more  than  strangers  be¬ 
cause  they  had  no  land  of  their  own  in  which  they 
and  others  could  feel  that  they  were  completely  at 

63 


ZIONISM 


home.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  emancipation  in  the 
eyes  of  the  law  has  not  carried  with  it  the  social 
emancipation  for  which  the  Jews  had  hoped.  It 
is  a  duty  which  the  Jews  owe  to  themselves,  to  get 
rid  of  this  alien  condition,  to  find  and  to  found  a 
home  in  which  their  superfluous  population  in  the 
various  countries  can  be  settled. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Pinsker  breaks,  in  a 
measure,  with  the  religious  hope  of  the  restoration 
as  Judaism  had  always  understood  it.  Such  a  home 
is  to  be  sought,  not  necessarily  in  the  Holy  Land, 
but  wherever  a  fitting  soil  can  be  found  for  the 
homeless  people.  He  argues  that  it  is  the  God-idea 
and  the  Bible  that  have  made  Palestine  holy,  not 
Jerusalem  and  not  the  Jordan,  and  these  ideas 
can  be  carried  by  the  Jews  into  any  land  in  which 
they  may  settle.  He  is  thus  a  territorialist  long 
before  the  rise  of  the  Ito  movement;  and  as  the 
Russian  Jews  were  impregnated  and  fired  by 
Pinsker’s  arguments,  we  can  understand  why  they 
have  greeted  the  latest  movement  with  so  much 
warmth. 

In  one  word,  it  is  self-emancipation  that  Pinsker 
preaches,  as  he  calls  it  in  the  title  of  his  work, 
Auto  emancipation.1  It  is  this  that  he  considers 
to  be  the  true  answer  to  anti-Semitism.2  But 

64 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

Pinsker  went  further,  and  sketched  in  broad  outline 
the  means  that  were  to  be  adopted  to  reach  this 
end.  His  perspicacity  and  his  clear  vision  are 
evident  from  the  fact  that,  in  a  general  way,  the 
lines  he  foreshadowed,  but  was  not  destined  to 
see  realized,  are  those  upon  which  later  develop¬ 
ments  were  to  run.  In  one  point,  however,  he  was 
mistaken.  He  looked  to  the  various  Jewish  “  Alli¬ 
ances  ”  to  head  such  a  movement,  thinking,  no 
doubt,  of  the  Alliance  Israelite,  the  Vienna  Allianz, 
and  the  Anglo-Jewish  Association  of  London,  all 
three  of  which  had  been  established,  during  the 
twenty  years  that  preceded  the  first  Russian  po¬ 
groms,  for  the  conservation  and  forwarding  of  gen¬ 
eral  Jewish  interests.  He  was  spared  the  knowl¬ 
edge  that  these  institutions  proved  to  be  among  the 
most  determined  opponents  of  the  ideas  which  he 
had  set  forth.  As  if  he  himself  half  suspected 
that  his  hopes  in  this  regard  might  not  be  realized, 
he  suggested  that  a  sort  of  general  board  (Direk- 
torium)  should  be  formed,  made  up  of  men  prom¬ 
inent  in  finance,  science,  and  letters,  in  whose  hand 
the  leadership  of  the  movement  should  be  placed, 
though  he  failed  to  indicate  in  what  manner  and  by 
what  means  the  choice  was  to  be  made.  In  addi¬ 
tion,  a  company  was  to  be  launched  to  care  for  the 

65 


ZIONISM 


financial  side  of  the  undertaking,  the  moneys  for 
which  were  to  be  gotten  partly  from  the  sale  of  the 
lands  acquired  by  the  general  board,  partly  from  a 
national  Jewish  subscription,  which  Pinsker  thought 
would  be  carried  through  upon  a  large  scale. 

I  have  mentioned  these  few  details  of  the  manner 
in  which  Pinsker  imagined  his  scheme  might  be 
carried  out,  merely  because  they  now  seem  almost 
prophetic  in  character.  They  have  found  expres¬ 
sion  in  the  Zionist  Congress,  in  the  Jewish  Colonial 
Trust,  and  in  the  National  Fund.  Nor  was  he 
wanting  in  political  foresight.  Though  he  did  not 
dwell  on  the  subject,  he  saw  clearly  that  any  fore¬ 
gathering  of  Jews  would  be  impossible  unless  it  had 
at  least  the  passive  good-will  of  the  political  forces 
that  control  the  fortunes  of  Europe.  That  he  did 
not  insist  upon  this  point  is  no  doubt  due  to  the  very 
modest  program  he  had  in  mind.  Nowhere  in  the 
pamphlet  do  we  find  the  word  u  state  ”  used.  He 
speaks  of  a  “  home  ”  and  of  a  “  colonist-com¬ 
munity  ”  (Kolonistengemeinwesen). 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  many  of  the  Jewish  leaders 
in  Russia  at  that  time  went  through  the  same  pro¬ 
cess  of  refinement  as  Pinsker.  Moses  Lob  Lilien- 
blum  is  another  characteristic  example.  Born  in 
1843  a  village  near  Kovno,  he  had  been  drawn 

66 


LEO  PINSKER 


facing  p.  66 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

into  the  Haskalah  movement.  His  personal  eman¬ 
cipation  from  the  confining  boundaries  of  the  Tal¬ 
mudic  education,  the  only  education  possible  for 
Jewish  students  in  the  Russia  of  his  day,  had  led 
him  far  afield  from  the  Jewish  outlook,  into  a 
materialistic  view  of  life,  which  threatened  him 
for  a  time  with  intellectual  shipwreck.  A  large 
soul,  however,  which  could  not  remain  insensible 
to  the  sufferings  of  his  people,  soon  furnished  the 
counterbalance.  As  early  as  1876  he  had  publicly 
defended  a  project  for  buying  Palestine  from  the 
Sultan — a  project  that  had  been  advanced  by  a  cer¬ 
tain  Hayyim  Gedaliah.  The  persecutions  of  1880 
and  1881  opened  his  eyes  to  the  real  question  that 
the  Russian  Jews  had  to  solve,  and,  throwing  aside 
all  considerations  for  his  future,  he  gave  himself 
heart  and  soul  to  the  new  movement,  Hibbat 
Ziyyon  (Love  of  Zion).  Pinsker’s  Autoemancipa¬ 
tion  made  a  great  impression  upon  him.  He  be¬ 
came  secretary  of  the  society  of  which  Pinsker  was 
the  inspiration  and  the  head,  and  in  his  Return  of 
the  Exiles  he  has  given  us  a  history  of  the  early 
years  of  the  society’s  work. 

The  passage  of  so  many  of  his  brethren  from 
Russia  to  America  set  Lilienblum  thinking.  He 
could  see  no  real  salvation  in  this  exodus  en  masse. 

67 


ZIONISM 


Though  liberal  America  might  offer  very  many 
more  advantages  to  the  Jews  than  Russia  ever 
could,  the  emigration  was  no  real  solution  of  the 
Jewish  question.  It  tended  merely  to  create  a 
Jewish  question  in  another  country.  It  was  with 
this  idea  in  mind  that  in  1883  he  published  his 
Rebirth  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Holy  Land  of 
Their  Ancestors.  His  political  insight  was,  of 
course,  not  deep;  his  chief  concern  was  to  see  as 
many  Jews  as  possible  settle  in  Palestine,  with  no 
thought  as  to  their  preparedness  for  the  work  there 
or  the  readiness  of  the  land  to  receive  them.  We 
are,  therefore,  not  concerned  with  the  practical 
measures  which  he  suggests  for  colonization,  but 
rather  with  the  central  idea,  that,  as  the  Jews  are 
everywhere  considered  to  be  strangers,  a  common 
existence  with  the  native  element  in  the  various 
countries  of  the  Exile  is  impossible,  and  therefore  a 
national  home  is  an  imperious  necessity.8 

Ideas  similar  to  those  of  Lilienblum  were  set 
forth  by  O.  L.  Levanda.  After  a  long  period  of 
literary  activity,  in  which  he  had  preached  the 
transformation  of  the  Russian  Jew  into  the  Russian 
citizen,  in  much  the  same  manner  as  Jewish  leaders 
in  Western  Europe  had  done  for  their  own  fol¬ 
lowers,  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  this  step 

68 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

a 

forward  in  state-citizenship  carried  with  it  irre¬ 
sistibly  a  diminution  of  Jewish  sentiment.  He  is 
the  first  perhaps  to  use  the  word  “  assimilation  ” — 
about  which  so  much  ink  was  to  be  spilled  later  on 
— and  to  make  it  clear  that  assimilation,  to  be  really 
effective,  must  proceed  from  the  larger  body  in 
which  the  smaller  one  is  placed.  To  Levanda,  the 
root  of  Jewish  misery  lies  in  the  fact— misconceived 
alike  by  Jews  and  by  non- Jews — that  the  real  op¬ 
ponents  of  assimilation  are  the  various  nations 
among  whom  the  Jews  live,  who  have  no  love  for 
union  with  them.  The  distaste  for  union  does  not 
come  from  the  Jews. 

It  is  perhaps  remarkable  that  this  whole  move¬ 
ment,  which  had  stirred  so  deeply  the  Jews  of 
Russia,  failed  to  find  a  resonant  echo  in  Western 
Europe.  If  one  excepts  Doctor  Riilf  in  Memel,  one 
looks  in  vain  for  an  intelligent  appreciation  of  the 
ideas  that  were  slowly  transforming  the  Jewish 
masses  in  Eastern  Europe.  It  is  probably  due  to 
the  ignorance  of  Russo-Jewish  matters  shown  even 
by  those  in  the  West  who  were  supposed  to  be 
students  of  contemporary  Jewish  life.  Besides, 
many  of  the  articles  by  Lilienblum,  Levanda,  and 
others  were  written  either  in  Russian  or  in  Judeo- 
German,  and  were  not  likely  to  fall  into  the  hands 

69 


ZIONISM 


of  Western  publicists  or  to  be  read  by  them.  But 
Doctor  Riilf  was  situated  in  the  northernmost  cor¬ 
ner  of  Prussia,  a  stone’s  throw  from  the  Russian 
frontier.  Memel  had  been  a  center  of  distribution 
when  the  Russo-Jewish  exodus  was  at  its  height. 
Riilf  had  witnessed  the  tragedy  at  his  very  door, 
and  Pinsker’s  work  reached  him  at  a  psychological 
moment,  when  his  Western  training  was  suffering 
from  the  severe  shock  it  had  received  by  a  return 
to  medieval  barbarism.  Riilf ’s  Arukat  Bat  Ammi 
( The  Healing  of  My  People)  is  not  remarkable  for 
the  closeness  of  its  logical  argumentation,  but  rather 
for  the  warm  feeling  and  lofty  idealism  that  per¬ 
vade  it.  Avowedly  written  under  the  influence  of 
Pinsker’s  Autoemancipation ,  it  formed  in  a  measure 
a  stepping-stone  over  which  some  ideas  of  the 
Russian  leaders  passed  into  Central  Europe. 

Only  some  of  them.  Jewish  nationalism  had 
little  attraction  for  the  Jewish  denizens  of  the  rest 
of  Europe.  Having  been  emancipated  before  the 
secular  law,  most  of  them  were  concerned  in  emanci¬ 
pating  themselves  from  Jewish  law,  or,  where  this 
was  not  sufficient,  in  proving  their  right  to  the  new 
status  by  a  complete  abandonment  of  the  old.  It 
was  only  in  certain  Orthodox  circles,  notably  in 
Frankfort-on-the-Main  and  Berlin,  that  one  side  of 

70 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

the  Russian  movement  received  sympathetic  fur¬ 
therance,  the  side  connected  with  the  colonization 
of  Palestine.  Now,  the  idea  of  Yishub  Erez  Y Israel 
(The  Resettlement  of  the  Land  of  Israel)  was  so 
closely  associated  with  Orthodox  tenets  that  it  may 
well  be  said  to  be  a  part  of  the  silent  creed  that 
usually  goes  hand  in  hand  with  official  and  doctrinal 
presentment  of  the  principles  of  a  religion.4  The 
furtherance  of  Jewish  colonization  in  the  Holy 
Land  could  not  well  be  neglected  by  those  who  held 
that  Jewish  “  custom  ”  (minhag)  when  followed 
for  a  length  of  time  became  invested  with  a  religious 
significance  and  developed  into  a  “  commandment  ” 
(mizwah).  Many  a  conscientious  Jew  salved  his 
conscience  by  accepting  this  part  of  the  new  pro¬ 
gram,  while  resolutely  denying  the  validity  of  the 
rest. 

But  even  in  Russia  itself  the  echo  of  Doctor 
Pinsker’s  piercing  cry  was  faint.  There  were 
leaders  sufficient  in  whom  the  larger  spirit  moved, 
but  there  were  few  regulars  to  assist  in  carrying  out 
the  lofty  ideas  of  the  leaders,  which  were  only  dimly 
understood  by  the  people  at  large.  It  was  but 
natural.  A  broad  view  demands  a  position  of 
vantage  from  which  it  can  be  taken.  The  life  of 
the  Jews  in  Russia  was  too  circumscribed  and  too 

71 


ZIONISM 


cramped  to  afford  them  an  opportunity  to  rise  to 
such  a  position.  It  is,  therefore,  greatly  to  Doctor 
Pinsker’s  credit  that,  being  unable  to  achieve  the 
full  measure  of  his  purpose,  he  was  content  to 
accept  less  and  to  become  the  head  of  the  Cho- 
vevi  Zion  (Hobebe  Ziyyon).  This  movement, 
which  had  Odessa  for  its  center,  sought  to  give 
tangible  expression  to  the  newly-awakened  interest 
in  Palestine.  Its  ramifications  reached  out  into 
other  parts  of  the  Diaspora,  notably  into  Roumania, 
where  it  received  active  support  from  such  men  as 
Doctor  K.  Lippe  and  L.  Pineles.  From  Russia  it 
spread  to  Austria,  Germany,  England,  and  the 
United  States.  Some  of  its  daughter-societies  were 
the  Kadimah  in  Vienna,  the  Ezra  in  Berlin,  and  the 
Bnei  Zion  associations  in  English-speaking  coun¬ 
tries.  Indeed,  in  1 890  the  attempt  was  made  to  weld 
the  societies  together  into  an  organic  whole  by  the 
formation  of  a  Central  Committee  in  Paris,  under 
the  direction  of  Doctor  Haffkine  and  M.  Myerson. 
Had  it  been  possible  to  inform  the  movement  with 
the  larger  ideas  of  Pinsker  and  some  of  his  imme¬ 
diate  associates,  a  world-wide  Jewish  movement 
might  have  resulted  from  the  Chovevi  Zion.  But 
the  Odessa  Committee  retained  its  preponderat¬ 
ing  influence,  and  despite  the  excellent  work  it  has 

72 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

done  in  assisting  colonization  and  furthering  the 
dissemination  of  culture  among  the  Jews  of  Pales¬ 
tine,  it  has,  like  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle, 
failed  to  utilize  the  rare  opportunity  it  had  of  mak¬ 
ing  its  program  large,  bold,  and  statesmanlike. 
And  when  Zionism  started  to  occupy  the  position 
the  Chovevi  Zion  societies  should  have  taken,  there 
was  noticeable  discord  between  the  two  parties,  and 
the  debate  was  carried  on  with  much  sound  and 
fury.  It  is  true  that  the  London  body  accepted 
the  Zionist  platform  in  1898,  and  the  Odessa  Com¬ 
mittee,  in  1906,  acquiesced  in  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  Seventh  Congress.  Nevertheless, 
Hibbat  Ziyyon  has  remained,  with  its  incom¬ 
plete  policy,  the  program  of  many  Russian  Zionists 
and  of  some  friends  of  the  movement  in  the  West. 
The  Chovevi  Zionists  must  be  regarded  as  spade- 
workers  in  a  cause  greater  than  they  themselves 
imagined;  for  without  the  primal  interest  in  Pales¬ 
tine  which  they  generated  and  centralized  in  Russia, 
it  would  have  been  difficult  for  Herzlian  Zionism  to 
penetrate  there.5 

I  have  said  that  Pinsker  was  willing  to  accept 
less  than  he  asked  for  rather  than  receive  nothing. 
Among  the  Jewish  apostles  at  that  time  there  was 
one,  however,  who  refused  to  serve  permanent 

73 


ZIONISM 


interests  by  opening  the  door  to  passing  moods. 
Pinsker  was  nearing  the  end  of  his  life  when  Asher 
Ginzberg  came  to  Odessa.  I  shall  have  something 
to  say  later  on  in  regard  to  Ginzberg’s  literary 
work  as  a  student  of  Jewish  history.  He  rec¬ 
ognized  at  once  how  pusillanimous  and  mediocre 
was  the  spirit  that  informed  the  Chovevi  Zion  as 
he  found  it  in  1889.  Envisaging  the  Jewish 
problem  in  its  totality,  the  calamitous  destiny  that 
seemed  to  hang  over  his  brethren  in  Russia,  Ahad 
ha-Am  (to  use  his  pen-name)  sought  to  infuse  new 
life  into  the  Chovevi  Zion,  to  interject  a  wider  and 
deeper  interpretation  into  the  old  Hibbat  Ziyyon. 
In  an  article  published  in  Ha-Meliz,  entitled  Lo  zeh 
ha-Derek  ( Not  This  Is  the  Way)  9  he  tried  to  dis¬ 
cover  for  his  readers  in  what  manner  the  movement 
Zionwards  had  failed  to  grasp  the  real  significance 
of  the  problem  it  had  started  out  to  solve.  In  a 
subsequent  number  of  the  same  paper,  he  published 
a  positive  program,  which  he  entitled,  very  char¬ 
acteristically,  Derek  ha-Hayyim  ( The  Way  of 
Life).  In  this  pronouncement,  Ahad  ha-Am 
pleads  for  a  more  spiritual  conception  of  Hibbat 
Ziyyon,  which  shall  busy  itself  not  only  with  the 
attainment  of  a  certain  goal,  but  also  with  the  prep¬ 
aration  of  the  Jewish  people  to  be  worthy  of  that 

74 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

goal.  He  suggests  an  association  of  the  men  of 
this  true  nationalist  persuasion,  who  are  to  be  “  an 
inspiration  to  each  other  and  a  help  in  communicat¬ 
ing  their  own  feelings  to  the  people,”  so  that  per¬ 
haps  “  in  the  course  of  days  and  years  they  may 
succeed  in  infusing  their  spirit  into  the  people  at 
large  and  in  restoring  those  moral  qualities  to  it 
without  which  a  people  cannot  exist  as  such.  Such 
a  society  ought  to  be  quite  untrammeled  in  its 
activities ;  it  should  not  regard  numbers  as  essential, 
but  quality.” 

It  will  be  seen  that  what  Ahad  ha-Am  was 
searching  for  was  a  breeding-place  for  leaders, 
where  in  company  with  others  of  like  tendency  that 
moral  and  spiritual  strength  might  be  developed 
which  he  wished  to  breathe  into  the  whole  Chovevi 
Zion  movement.  A  chosen  few  gathered  around 
the  author  of  the  W ay  of  Life ,  but  though  lishkot, 
or  lodges,  were  formed  in  many  Russian  cities,  and 
though  adherents  were  gained  in  some  of  the  larger 
cities  of  mid-Europe,  the  number  of  actual  members 
was  never  much  above  one  hundred  and  fifty.  And 
it  was  not  merely  fortuitous  that  this  little  band  took 
the  title  Bene  Mosheh  (Sons  of  Moses)  ;  for  to 
Ahad  ha-Am  Moses  was  the  protagonist  of  the 
highest  prophetical  outlook  developed  in  the  Bible 

75 


ZIONISM 


— the  man  of  truth,  the  extremist,  the  example  of 
righteousness  in  word  and  action.7  Jewish  nation¬ 
alism  was  to  embody  these  great  qualities  of  the 
prophet. 

The  Bene  Mosheh  failed  of  its  greater  promise. 
It  remained  a  small  group,  whose  members  were 
not  of  the  necessary  caliber  to  penetrate  the  whole 
of  the  Chovevi  Zion  movement  with  their  influence, 
much  less  to  mobilize  the  conscience  of  the  Jew¬ 
ish  people  and  produce  that  “  vitalized  generation  ” 
which  Ahad  ha-Am  demanded.  Yet,  during  the 
short  period  of  its  existence,  it  is  said  that  there  pro¬ 
ceeded  out  of  the  midst  of  that  circle  certain  in¬ 
fluences  that  founded  a  number  of  institutions  which 
are  among  the  best  of  the  moving  forces  in  Pales¬ 
tine  Jewry  to-day:  the  colony  Rehobot,  the  Carmel 
Wine  Company,  the  publication  society  Ahiasaf, 
and  the  Hebrew  magazine  Pla-Shiloah.8 

It  was  in  the  year  1874  that  the  first  attempt  was 
made  to  found  a  Jewish  agricultural  colony  in 
Palestine;  some  Jews  from  Jerusalem  laid  the  first 
stones  of  Petah  Tikwah  (=Melebbes).  The 
second  dates  from  1882,  when  immigrants  from 
Russia  and  Roumania  settled  at  Rishon  le-Ziyyon 
and  Wadi  el-Hanin  (=Nes  Ziyyona)  in  Judea, 
Rosh  Pinnah  in  Galilee,  and  Zikron  Yaakob  in 

76 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

Samaria.  The  real  impetus  to  these  attempts  be¬ 
longs  to  the  Chovevi  Zion.  It  has  often  been  said 
that  the  history  of  these  early  foundations  is  an  ex¬ 
tremely  sorry  one  and  not  auspicious  for  their  future 
prosperity.9  The  fact  is  undeniable.  Most  of  the 
new  colonists  suffered  dire  necessity,  and  must  have 
found  it  difficult  to  decide  whether  their  present 
situation  was  any  better  than  that  which  had  pre¬ 
ceded  it.  Yet  it  is  characteristic  of  the  high  purpose 
and  the  incurable  optimism  that  animated  these 
pioneers  that  few  of  them  longed  for  the  fleshpots 
of  Europe,  and  that,  in  spite  of  almost  insuperable 
difficulties,  they  kept  manfully  to  the  task  they  had 
set  for  themselves. 

But  in  nothing  perhaps  is  the  disorganization  of 
Jewry  at  that  time  so  evident  as  in  the  manner  in 
which  the  whole  movement  was  begun  and  carried 
forward.  East  and  West  faced  each  other,  if  not 
as  opposing  forces,  at  least  as  brothers  who  were 
at  the  same  time  strangers.  The  Eastern  leaders 
were  not  men  of  the  world,  but  denizens  of  the 
study,  students  and  university  graduates.  Those 
of  the  West  were  indeed  men  of  the  world,  but 
they  had  not  the  same  Jewish  feeling  possessed  by 
their  brethren  in  the  East.  It  was  not  merely  the 
eternal  conflict  between  the  practical  and  the  ideal 
6  77 


ZIONISM 


that  seems  to  have  vitiated  the  whole  Chovevi  Zion 
movement;  it  was  a  sort  of  inner  contradiction 
among  the  members  themselves.  The  Russian 
leaders  were  animated  by  a  strong  national  senti¬ 
ment,  which  was  the  incentive  and  the  background 
for  their  interest  in  Palestine.  Colonization  in  that 
country  had  a  higher  object  for  them  than  the  pos¬ 
sible  solution  of  a  present  and  very  pressing  crisis. 
Among  the  Jews  in  the  West,  most  of  those  who 
threw  in  their  lot  with  the  Chovevi  Zion  felt  con¬ 
vinced  that  religious  considerations  enjoined  upon 
them  the  furtherance  of  the  movement,  but  refused 
to  allow  any  considerations  of  a  Jewish  nationalist 
character  to  influence  their  action.  And  there  was 
a  third  group,  whose  association  with  the  work  was 
purely  philanthropic,  who  had  as  little  sense  for  the 
religious  preoccupations  of  their  Orthodox  brethren 
as  they  had  for  the  more  patriotic  sentiments  of  the 
nationalists.  It  was  fateful  that  just  this  latter 
class  was  bound  to  have  a  preponderating  influence 
upon  the  course  of  events,  because  in  its  hands  lay 
the  means  for  any  action  on  a  large  scale. 

In  the  first  category  were  the  leaders  of  the 
Odessa  Committee,  Pinsker,  Lilienblum,  Rabbi 
Mohilever,  Professor  Shapira  of  Heidelberg,  Pro¬ 
fessor  Mandelstamm  of  Kiev,  and  S.  P.  Rabino- 

78 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 


witz;  in  the  second  the  Ezra  Verein  of  Berlin, 
with  men  like  Doctor  Hirsch  Hildesheimer  at  the 
head;  and  in  the  third  Baron  Edmond  de  Roth¬ 
schild,  the  Jewish  Colonization  Association,  and  the 
Alliance  Israelite  Universelle.  The  third  class,  it  is 
true,  never  attached  itself  formally  to  the  Chovevi 
Zion  movement.  It  was  through  Chovevi  Zionists 
that  their  aid  for  Palestinian  colonization  was 
secured.  How  was  it  possible  for  such  disparate 
elements  to  combine  in  any  common  effort  or  to 
give  proper  and  unified  direction  to  so  radical  and 
novel  a  movement  among  the  Jews  ?  No  organiza¬ 
tion  existed  to  which  the  nationalists  could  turn  and 
in  which  they  could  find  their  proper  place.  A 
leading  mind  was  wanting  that  could  effect  such  an 
organization  within  their  own  ranks.  They  were 
forced  to  ally  themselves  with  the  Chovevi  Zion. 
But  when  Zionism  with  its  larger  outlook  ap¬ 
peared,  they  immediately  found  their  bearings  and 
became  its  chief  supporters. 

The  history  of  Jewish  colonization  in  Palestine 
between  the  years  1882  and  1899  represents  a 
further  attempt  at  a  solution  of  the  Jewish  question 
upon  the  old  philanthropic  basis.  It  was  bound  to 
prove  abortive  just  because  it  was  philanthropic. 
For  to  treat  the  needs  of  a  whole  people  from  so 

79 


ZIONISM 


narrow  a  standpoint  was  to  measure  a  country  with 
the  tailor’s  yardstick.  Had  that  philanthropy  at 
least  been  informed  by  a  higher  ideal,  it  might  have 
stood  a  chance  of  laying  the  foundation,  if  nothing 
more,  for  a  greater  effort.  Philanthropy  as  a  pal¬ 
liative  for  Jewish  suffering  has  been  tried  so  often 
during  the  centuries  that  have  passed  that  its  bank¬ 
ruptcy  in  Palestine  was  a  conclusion  almost  fore¬ 
gone.  A  bureaucracy  can  move  only  upon  narrow 
lines,  and  the  bureaucracy  of  this  epoch  of  Palestin¬ 
ian  colonization  was  further  vitiated  by  all  the  evil 
concomitants  with  what  in  practice  was  a  species  of 
absentee  landlordism.  That  something  was,  in  the 
end,  saved  from  the  wreck,  and  became  the  basis 
for  a  newer  and  more  wholesome  development,  was 
due  to  the  good  sense  of  the  chief  absentee  land¬ 
lord  and  to  the  perseverance  of  the  colonists  them¬ 
selves.  Baron  Edmond  de  Rothschild  deserves  all 
the  credit  and  praise  that  has  been  meted  out  to 
him  for  having  been  sufficiently  open-minded  to 
recognize  a  fault,  when  it  was  called  to  his  attention 
with  no  uncertain  voice.  He  had  spent  a  large  sum 
of  money  in  the  founding  and  the  upkeep  of  many 
of  the  Palestinian  colonies ;  rumor  fixes  the  sum  as 
high  as  sixty  or  seventy  millions  of  francs.  It 
was  no  easy  matter  to  disengage  himself  from  the 

80 


LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

responsibility  this  expenditure  carried  with  it.  But 
in  the  year  1899  he  handed  over  whatever  interest 
he  still  had  in  the  colonies  to  the  Jewish  Coloniza¬ 
tion  Association. 

The  change  was  perhaps  for  the  worse.  It 
rendered  the  bureaucracy  still  more  bureaucratic, 
and  the  absentee  landlordism  more  pernicious. 
But  even  the  Jewish  Colonization  Association  was 
not  able  to  resist  for  long  the  continued  demands  of 
the  colonists  themselves,  nor  combat  successfully  the 
rising  and  ever-increasing  dissatisfaction  among  the 
Jewish  masses.  In  1907,  the  colonies  were  handed 
over  to  the  colonists,  and  the  duties  of  self-govern¬ 
ment  were  laid  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  who  by 
rights  were  called  upon  to  bear  them.  Bureaucracy 
and  absentee  landlordism  fell  at  a  stroke,  and  a 
more  healthy  spirit  was  engendered,  which  made 
it  possible  for  the  colonists  to  strive  for  some  of 
the  ideals  for  the  sake  of  which  they  had  attempted 
the  work.  Material  prosperity  followed  in  the 
wake  of  the  change.  In  19 11  the  Wine  Growers 
Association  of  Rishon  le-Ziyyon  and  Zikron-Yaa- 
kob  were  able  to  pay  off  nearly  half  a  million 
francs  of  their  indebtedness  to  Baron  Rothschild. 

[Notes,  pp.  221-222] 


81 


CHAPTER  IV 

THEODOR  HERZL 

On  July  3,  1904,  the  many  friends  and  the  in¬ 
numerable  followers  of  Herzl  were  shocked  to  hear 
of  his  death.  Since  then  sufficient  time  has  gone 
by  to  make  both  friend  and  foe  calmer  and  more 
deliberate  in  judgment.  Perhaps  to  use  the  word 
“  foe  ”  in  this  connection  is  wrong.  Herzl  may  well 
have  had  opponents  and  critics;  foes — if  that  word 
connotes  enmity  and  hatred — he  could  not  have 
had.  And  if,  in  the  following  pages,  the  personal 
note  resounds  too  strongly  and  too  persistently,  it 
is  because  the  personality  of  Herzl  signified  so 
much  in  the  unifying  and  upbuilding  work  that  he 
did.  The  doctrines  he  propounded  in  his  J udenstaat 
were  not  new.  They  had  been  set  forth  quite  as 
translucently  by  Pinsker  in  his  Autocvficniciputiou f 
perhaps  even  with  warmer  feeling,  and  certainly 
with  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  Jewish 
history  and  Jewish  life.  They  had  been  preached 
with  the  fervor  of  a  prophet  by  Riilf;  they  were 
the  foundation  stones  with  which  Lilienblum  and 
Levanda  had  worked.  Even  the  practical  measures 

82 


THEODOR  HERZL 


enounced  by  Herzl,  by  means  of  which  the  “  Jewi  sh 
State  ”  was  to  be  built  up,  are  all  to  be  found  in 
Pinsker’s  pamphlet.  The  results  are  all  the  more 
strange  when  we  consider  that  Pinsker  intended 
to  call  forth  a  practical  realization  of  his  theories, 
while  Herzl’s  pages  were  conceived  and  written  as 
a  sort  of  self-communing,  not  even  destined  for  a 
large  circle  of  friends.  The  Judenstaat  is  the  cool 
reasoning  of  the  philosopher;  Autoemancipation , 
the  cry  of  the  hunted  stag  that  pants  after  some 
haven  of  refuge.  The  one  is  the  expression  of  noble 
sentiments  touched  by  poetic  fancy  and  of  a  keen 
sense  of  injustice  done  to  others;  the  second,  the 
prescription  of  the  physician  who  has  studied  his 
own  disease,  and  is  ready  to  plunge  the  scalpel  into 
his  own  flesh. 

I  have  intimated  that  it  was  largely  the  person¬ 
ality  of  Herzl,  when  once  it  was  forced  out  into  the 
open  by  various  circumstances,  that  carried  the  day 
and  invoked  a  zeal  and  a  passion  perhaps  unique 
in  modern  history.  He  possessed  in  a  larger 
measure  than  most  men  intellectual  grace  and  per¬ 
suasive  enthusiasm.  In  a  short  time  he  was  sur¬ 
rounded  by  a  band  of  determined  men,  to  whom  his 
word  was  almost  law,  his  wish  a  command.  They 
put  themselves  willingly  under  his  somewhat  auto- 

83 


ZIONISM 


cratic  rule,  and  gathered  around  his  still  unfurled 
banner.  No  leader  of  men  has  ever  been  placed  in 
exactly  the  same  position.  Herzl  had  nothing 
visible  or  future  to  offer  to  those  who  immediately 
and  intimately  assisted  him — no  hopes  of  prefer¬ 
ment,  no  prospect  of  personal  advancement.  Both 
they  and  he  were  to  be  in  the  service  of  an  ideal, 
and  in  that  service  they  were  to  do  battle  together 
against  skepticism  within  the  ranks  and  opposition 
without.  With  very  few  exceptions,  they  have 
proved  faithful  to  their  trust.  If  the  term  beauti¬ 
ful  ”  can  be  applied  to  a  man  without  derogating 
his  manhood,  it  can  be  used  of  Herzl.  But  he  was 
no  less  beautiful  in  sentiment  and  in  mind  than  he 
was  in  person.  He  was  fascinating  intellectually 
and  physically,  so  that  he  quickly  drew  all  men 
within  the  charmed  circle  of  his  influence. 

Nor  was  any  one  less  prepared  for  the  work 
he  was  to  be  called  upon  to  do  than  was  Herzl. 
Born  in  Austria  and  educated  for  the  legal  pro¬ 
fession  at  the  Vienna  University,  he  had  followed 
the  usual  course  of  his  Jewish  fellow-students, 
whom  larger  and  more  secular  interests  had  drawn 
away  completely  from  contact  with  Jewish  affairs. 
He  had  taken  no  part  in  the  Jewish  revival  that 
had  found  its  way  among  some  of  its  students  at 

84 


THEODOR  HERZL 


his  Alma  Mater.  He  was  practically  a  stranger 
to  his  people,  and  they  to  him.  His  exquisite  and 
facile  pen  had  led  him  into  literature  and  jour¬ 
nalism.  As  representative  of  the  Neue  Freie 
Presse,  he  had  lived  in  Paris  for  a  number  of  years ; 
and  this  voluntary  exile  had  not  served  to  counter¬ 
act  the  secular  and  universalistic  tendencies  of  a 
nature  that  was  broad  and  free.  But  there  was 
slumbering  in  him,  quietly  and  unobserved  even  by 
himself,  a  great  fund  of  Jewish  feeling  and  senti¬ 
ment.  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  ever  called  forth 
during  his  younger  days,  though  anti-Semitism  had 
begun  to  be  rampant  at  the  Vienna  University  and 
the  Vienna  Rathaus.  But  his  stay  in  Paris 
synchronized  with  the  early  period  of  the  Dreyfus 
affair.  The  anti-Semitic  campaign,  of  which  this 
“  affair  ”  was  the  expression  and  in  the  miasma  of 
which  it  flourished,  made  a  deep  impression  on  his 
sensitive  nature,  and  awoke  with  a  start  his  dormant 
Jewish  consciousness. 

The  Judenstaat  was  written  in  Paris  in  the  year 
1895/  It  was  intended  to  be  nothing  more  than  a 
private  confession  of  the  author  to  himself  and  a 
philosophico-political  disquisition  for  a  few  intimate 
friends.  The  circle  in  which  Herzl  moved  at  that 
time  may  be  gauged  by  the  fact  that  when  it  was 

85 


ZIONISM 


read  by  one  of  those  friends,  he  declared  unhesi¬ 
tatingly  that  the  author  was  making  straight  for 
the  madhouse.  That  it  ever  became  public  was  due 
to  the  fortuitous  circumstance  that  shortly  after  this 
Herzl  moved  back  to  Vienna,  where  he  became 
feuilleton-editor  of  the  newspaper  which  he  had 
represented  in  Paris.  Not  only  was  Vienna  more  in 
touch  physically  and  spiritually  with  the  great  Jew¬ 
ish  centers  of  Eastern  Europe.  In  the  early 
“  eighties  ”  of  the  last  century  Nathan  Birnbaum 
had  founded  there,  largely  among  Jewish  university 
students,  the  society  Kadimah.  This  society  was 
thoroughly  imbued  with  the  Jewish  nationalism  that 
had  raised  so  high  the  hopes  of  the  Jews  in  Russia. 
It  was  perhaps  the  first  point  of  contact  between  the 
Russian  Jews  nationalistically  inclined  and  their 
brethren  in  other  parts  of  Europe.  The  Kadimah 
addressed  a  letter  to  Herzl  in  which  it  acknowl¬ 
edged  its  adhesion  to  his  views,  and  made  a  direct 
proposition  looking  to  the  founding  of  a  Society  of 
Jews  to  take  up  the  work  Herzl  had  mapped  out. 
It  is  significant  that  it  was  proposed  to  fix  the  head¬ 
quarters  of  this  society  in  London.  England  was 
one  of  the  few  great  powers  that  had  not  capitulated 
to  anti-Semitism,  and  whose  liberal  tendencies  con¬ 
tinually  inspired  the  hope  in  Herzl  that  he  would 

86 


THEODOR  HERZL. 


find  a  ready  assent  to  his  theories  among  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Jews. 

And,  indeed,  the  first  just  appreciation  of  the 
whole  scope  of  the  scheme  propounded  in  the 
Judenstaat  was  by  an  English  Jew,  Israel  Zang- 
will.  This  brilliant  writer  and  lover  of  his  people 
happened  to  be  in  Vienna  shortly  after  Herzl’s 
return.  Zangwill,  of  course,  stood  much  closer  to 
the  immediate  Jewish  past  than  Herzl.  He  had 
been  born  and  bred  in  strictly  Jewish  circles, 
and,  as  he  knew  some  part  of  the  Jewish  masses 
better  than  did  his  distinguished  fellow-artist, 
he  may  have  recognized  many  of  the  difficulties  in 
the  situation  more  clearly  than  Herzl.  But  his 
poetic  imagination  was  fired  by  the  novel  conception 
and  the  daring  solution  proposed  therein.  Here 
at  least  was  a  theory  and  an  interpretation  inspiring 
in  their  mettle  and  their  audacity.  The  Jewish 
public  ought  to  have  a  chance  to  hear  them — to 
accept  or  to  refuse.  It  was  through  Zangwill’s 
instrumentality  that  Herzl  was  invited  to  appear 
before  the  Maccabaeans  in  London,  July  6,  1896.2 
Herzl  himself  had  inaugurated  the  public  discussion 
of  what  has  now  become  known  as  Zionism  3  by  a 
letter  to  the  Jewish  Chronicle,  in  which  he  says: 
“  My  pamphlet  will  open  a  general  discussion  on 

87 


ZIONISM 


the  Jewish  question.  .  .  .  [The  newly-formed 
society]  will  then  find  out  for  the  first  time  whether 
the  Jews  really  wish  to  go  to  the  Promised  Land, 
and  whether  they  ought  to  go  there.”  The  first 
edition  of  the  Judenstaat  had  been  published  in 
Vienna  in  1 896/ 

I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the  answer  which 
certain  sections  of  European  Jewry  had  given  to 
the  anti-Semitic  attack.  By  his  aloofness  from 
Jewish  affairs,  Herzl  had  followed  along  similar 
lines,  probably  without  much  thought,  and  uncon¬ 
sciously  led  by  his  early  surroundings  and  upbring¬ 
ing.  But  just  as  soon  as  the  question  became  for¬ 
mulated  in  his  mind,  his  native  nobility  of  feeling 
rose  in  revolt  against  the  supine  attitude  such  a 
course  involved,  and  his  clear-sighted  vision  saw 
the  fatuousness  of  such  a  program,  if  program  it 
could  be  called.  He  soon  saw  that  the  answer  to 
anti-Semitism  was  not  to  be  found  in  a  dull  resigna¬ 
tion  that  accepted  an  impossible  situation,  but  rather 
in  a  constructive  policy  that  would  remove  some 
of  the  causes  that  had  contributed  to  make  the 
disease  possible,  and  would  restore  to  the  Jews 
the  self-consciousness  they  were  in  danger  of  losing. 
The  Judenstaat  and  what  it  represented  were  the 
answer  to  anti-Semitism. 


88 


THEODOR  HERZL 


In  the  whole  pamphlet  there  was  nothing  really 
new.  Both  the  underlying  principles  and  the  means 
suggested  to  make  them  fruitful  of  result  are  con¬ 
tained  in  Pinsker’s  Autoemancipation .  I  am  as¬ 
sured  that  Herzl  had  never  heard  of  this  work  until 
several  years  had  elapsed,  as  little  as  he  had  known 
of  Hess’  Rome  and  Jerusalem  or  Riilf’s  Arukat 
Bat  Ammi.  It  is  therefore  the  more  remarkable 
that  the  conclusions  are  so  similar.  Starting  from 
the  premise  that  anti-Semitism  is  a  continually  in¬ 
creasing  menace,  and  that  evidently  it  is  eradicable, 
he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  outside  world 
does  not  desire  to  amalgamate  with  the  Jews,  ex¬ 
cept  upon  conditions  that  are  subversive  of  the  con¬ 
tinuance  of  the  Jews  as  a  people.  Unless  the 
Jewish  people  is  desirous  of  committing  collective 
suicide,  it  must  find  some  egress  from  a  position 
which,  with  every  year,  is  becoming  less  and  less 
tenable.  That  which  it  needs  is  a  definite  and  cer¬ 
tain  home,  and  it  is  to  the  accomplishment  of  this 
need  that  Herzl  devotes  most  of  his  attention.  He 
demands  the  formation  of  a  new  organization,  a 
“  Society  of  Jews.”  No  existing  corporate  body 
appeared  to  him  to  be  sufficiently  broad  to  serve  as 
a  sure  foundation  for  so  important  a  work.  This 
society  is  to  make  all  the  preliminary  scientific  and 


ZIONISM 


political  investigations.  Then  a  “  Jewish  Com¬ 
pany  n  is  to  be  founded,  with  a  capital  of  fifty  mil¬ 
lion  pounds  and  with  its  seat  in  London.  Herzl 
obviously  had  in  mind  the  great  English  trading- 
companies,  which,  half-political  and  half-mercan¬ 
tile,  had  administered,  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Crown,  vast  territories  in  Asia  and  Africa.  For 
this  reason,  too,  he  already  adumbrated  the  idea 
of  a  charter,  which,  in  the  years  following,  was  to 
loom  so  large  in  Zionist  discussions.  The  con¬ 
clusions  come  to  by  the  “  Society  of  Jews  ”  are  to 
be  put  in  practice  by  the  u  Jewish  Company  ,  in 
whose  hands,  too,  was  to  be  placed  the  organization 
of  the  new  community. 

The  distinguishing  feature  of  Herzl’s  present¬ 
ment  is  the  greater  stress  he  lays  upon  the  practical 
consummation  of  the  plan  as  compared  with  that  of 
his  predecessors.  His  general  political  outlook  was 
larger  and  wider.  He  envisages  the  question  in 
its  totality.  Notwithstanding  a  poetic  foresight 
that  was  native  in  him,  he  writes  with  the  pen  of  a 
politician  and  speaks  the  language  of  a  statesman. 
The  fire  of  the  prophet,  which  lights  up  the  writings 
of  his  German  and  Russian  precursors,  never  gains 
the  ascendancy  over  the  cooler  judgment  of  the 
practical  legislator.  Palestine  exercises  no  fascina- 

90 


THEODOR  HERZL 


tion  upon  him.  He  shows  no  trace  of  a  knowledge 
of  the  Chovevi  Zion  movement  or  of  the  various 
attempts  made  to  rebuild  the  waste  places  in  the 
land  of  the  forefathers.  Palestine  is  but  one  of 
various  possibilities  for  Jewish  settlement,  as  is 
Argentina  or  Canada.  In  the  Judenstaat  there  are 
no  dithyrambics.  Everywhere  cool  pronounce¬ 
ments  that  capture  the  mind  rather  than  transport 
the  imagination.  It  is  for  this  reason  perhaps  that 
Herzl  was  understood  of  the  West,  and  his  argu¬ 
mentative  presentation  had  a  greater  chance  of 
success  than  the  more  elaborate  disputations  of 
previous  writers.  In  one  word,  he  is  a  cool  and 
modern  man  of  the  world,  speaking  to  moderns 
like  himself. 

From  all  the  evidence  it  is  plain  that  Herzl  never 
had  the  slightest  idea  of  placing  himself  at  the  head 
of  a  practical  organization.5  He  had  been  led  by 
others  to  give  his  ideas  to  the  world  at  large.  The 
very  force  of  circumstances  was  to  take  him  away 
from  his  desk  and  from  the  quiet  of  his  study  into 
the  turmoil  and  ferment  of  public  life.  But  just 
as  chance  had  discovered  in  him  the  deep-set  racial 
Jew,  so  it  was  to  reveal  the  statesman.  Even  in 
exile  the  Jews  had  from  time  to  time  developed 
men  of  large  political  views,  men  capable  of  leading 

91 


ZIONISM 


the  ship  of  state.  One  is  led  at  once  to  think  of 
such  men  as  Disraeli,  Cremieux,  Luzzatti,  Sonino, 
and  others,  if  only  modern  times  are  taken  into 
account.  But,  with  the  exception  of  Don  Joseph 
of  Naxos  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  Adolphe 
Cremieux  in  the  nineteenth,  none  of  these  statesmen 
had  placed  his  abilities  and  his  opportunities  in  the 
service  of  his  own  brethren.  Other  nations  and 
stranger  peoples  had  profited  of  their  gifts.  Herzl’s 
special  claim  rests  upon  his  unique  devotion  to  the 
needs  and  aspirations  of  the  Jewish  people. 

Slowly  but  surely  the  consciousness  deepened  in 
Herzl’s  mind  that  his  first  step  forward  necessitated 
a  second.  The  adhesion  of  the  Vienna  Kadimah 
and  the  request  for  a  meeting  at  which  the  whole 
subject  should  be  discussed,  soon  determined  him 
to  proceed.  He  was  not  deterred  by  the  some¬ 
what  lukewarm  reception  he  had  met  in  London. 
Herzl’s  greatest  fault  perhaps  was  his  besetting 
optimism.  As  Nordau  said  of  him  in  his  memorial 
address  at  the  Seventh  Congress,8  he  imagined  that 
he  had  behind  him  a  multitude  of  Herzls,  “  that 
very  many  Jews  had,  like  himself,  determined  no 
longer  to  bear  oppression,  that  they  had  his  steel 
will,  his  moral  earnestness,  his  ideal  inspiration, 
his  unstinted  unselfishness,  his  self-sacrifice.”  But 

92 


1 


THE  SE 

BASEL, 


following  p.  92 


ND  CONGRESS 

jUST  28-31,  1898 


THEODOR  HERZL 


such  optimism  is  indispensable  in  any  leader  of  men. 

The  call  for  the  First  Congress,  which  was  to  be 
the  beginning  of  Herzl’s  constructive  policy,  was 
issued  early  in  1897.  Another  circumstance  had, 
in  the  meantime,  intervened,  which  was  calculated 
to  induce  him  to  persevere.  The  public  discussions 
of  his  pamphlet  had  penetrated  far  and  wide. 
From  the  very  first  Herzl  had  desired  this  publicity. 
He  believed  that  the  Jewish  question  was  one  that 
intimately  affected  certain  political  considerations, 
and  the  interests  of  various  states  demanded  that  it 
should  be  settled;  and,  especially,  a  permanent 
settlement  could  be  effected  only  if  it  were  reached 
to  the  satisfaction  and  with  the  assistance  of 
European  diplomacy.  In  some  manner,  not  as  yet 
explained,  the  publication  of  the  Judenstaat  and  the 
theories  it  contained,  had  been  brought  to  the  notice 
of  the  Turkish  Sultan.  He  dispatched  to  Herzl, 
in  May,  1896,  a  secret  emissary,  the  Chevalier  de 
Newlinsky,  with  the  offer  of  a  charter  for  Palestine, 
in  return  for  the  cessation  of  the  European  press 
campaign  against  him  because  of  the  Armenian 
massacres.7  The  Sultan  had  the  usual  exaggerated 
idea  of  the  power  of  the  Jews  in  the  Continental 
press,  and  endeavored,  in  this  manner,  to  buy  off 
the  just  criticism  of  the  barbarities  he  had  inflicted 

93 


7 


ZIONISM 


upon  a  race  with  a  history  somewhat  similar  to  that 
of  the  Jews  in  its  tragedy  and  lonesomeness.  Not 
only  were  the  Jews  not  so  powerful  in  this  respect 
as  the  Sultan  supposed;  they  were  not  so  supine 
as  to  execute  such  a  bargain  and  reach  their  own 
goal  over  the  dead  bodies  of  another  race.  Un¬ 
fortunately,  too,  they  were  not  sufficiently  proud  to 
make  a  distinctively  Jewish  question  their  own. 
The  Neue  Freie  Presse,  of  which  Herzl  was  one  of 
the  editors,  never  once  mentioned  the  word  Zionism 
as  long  as  the  leader  lived. 

Perhaps  the  attitude  of  the  Vienna  newspaper 
was  the  attitude  the  greater  part  of  Western  Jewry 
would  have  desired  to  take  in  the  premises,  had  this 
been  possible.  To  ignore  the  assaults  upon  posi¬ 
tions  considered  impregnable  is  good  tactics,  when 
the  assumption  that  they  are  impregnable  is  correct. 
As  long  as  the  questions  raised  remained  subjects 
for  academic  discussion  within  the  Jewish  camp, 
such  a  policy,  though  not  one  of  the  highest  virtue, 
was  possible.  But  the  call  for  a  Congress  meant 
the  passage  from  discussion  to  deed,  and  the  ardor 
and  spirit  with  which  the  campaign  for  it  was 
carried  on  made  it  necessary  that  the  various  Jewish 
organizations  and  certain  public  men  should  define 
their  position  towards  the  new  movement.  It  must 

94 


THEODOR  HERZL 


be  admitted  that  their  position  was,  in  most  cases, 
frankly  hostile.  This  hostility  came  from  the  most 
varied  quarters — from  Orthodox,  from  Reform, 
from  No-nothing  Jews.  Even  the  Chovevi  Zion 
in  Western  Europe  refused  to  join  hands,  and  the 
larger  organizations,  such  as  the  Alliance  in  Paris, 
the  Jewish  Colonization  Association,  and  the 
Vienna  Allianz,  announced  a  determined  oppo¬ 
sition.  That  this  antagonism  proceeded  from  such 
different  spheres  is  evidence  that  the  question 
turned  about  some  basal  idea,  and  that  the  Jews 
were  lined  up  in  two  opposing  forces  on  either  side 
of  it.  For  the  Reform  Jews  Zionism  was  too  or¬ 
thodox;  for  the  Orthodox  it  was  not  sufficiently 
religious;  for  the  No-nothings  it  was  too  Jewish. 

If  we  take  the  last  class  first,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
the  new  pronouncement  required  of  such  Jews  a 
great  mental  and  moral  effort.  I  should  not  care  to 
say  that  many  of  them  were  incapable  of  such  an 
effort.  To  make  such  a  demand  for  effort  from  the 
plain  man  of  the  street  is  perhaps  asking  too  much, 
whether  in  the  interest  of  Zionism  or  of  any  other 
idea.  He  is  accustomed  to  follow  the  line  of  least 
resistance.  He  objects  to  being  awakened  some¬ 
what  rudely.  Especially  in  this  case  he  was  averse 
to  being  asked  to  take  sides.  It  was  a  question  from 

95 


ZIONISM 


which  he  had  hoped  to  escape;  and  he  feared  for 
the  social  position  which  he  imagined  he  had  se¬ 
cured  at  the  cost  of  his  own  and  his  forefather’s 
past.  If  his  circumstances  were  such  as  to  render 
him  free  from  all  cares,  Zionism  came  in  as  a  sort 
of  trouble  fete ,  and  the  quicker  done  with  it  the 
better. 

The  religious  difficulties  scented  by  the  Orthodox 
in  the  new  movement  are  readily  intelligible.  The 
Messianic  idea  among  the  Jews,  which  was  firmly 
coupled  with  that  of  the  Restoration,  was  opposed 
to  a  human  realization  of  the  hope,  in  strong  con¬ 
trast  to  the  Christian,  which  was  based  upon  a 
more  human  accomplishment.  But,  even  apart 
from  such  doctrinal  considerations,  many  of  the 
leaders  of  the  new  Zionism  were  indifferent  to 
religious  sentiment  and  disassociated  from  Jewish 
practices.  Herzl  himself  belonged  in  this  category, 
as  also  some  of  his  principal  helpers.  Indeed,  it 
must  be  conceded  that  early  there  were  currents 
discernible  in  the  movement  that  were  definitely 
anti-religious;  and,  in  general,  the  insistence  upon 
the  view  that  the  question  was  economic  and 
political  rather  than  religious,  was  calculated  to 
fill  the  Orthodox  with  alarm.  The  opposition  from 
this  quarter  has  never  wholly  disappeared,  even 

96 


THEODOR  HERZL 


though  Herzl  was  compelled  by  the  logic  of  events 
to  become  more  Palestinian  in  his  attitude,  and  even 
though  the  Second  Congress  passed  a  resolution  de¬ 
fining  clearly  the  official  attitude  of  the  movement,5 
without,  of  course,  impairing  the  freedom  of  the 
individual  member.  At  a  later  period  a  break  was 
made,  and  a  section  of  the  Orthodox  camp,  under 
the  name  of  Mizrachi,  joined  the  Zionists,  and  has 
very  noticeably  made  its  influence  felt.  But,  though 
one  can  understand  the  religious  difficulty  which 
the  Orthodox  apprehended,  one  fails  to  appreciate 
the  tactics  of  abstention.  Zionism,  whatever  else 
might  result  from  it,  made  for  a  deepened  sense  of 
Jewish  solidarity,  a  profounder  study  of  Jewish 
history,  and  a  wider  sympathy  with  all  manifesta¬ 
tions  of  the  Jewish  spirit.  It  was  in  a  line  with  a 
part  at  least  of  Orthodox  aspirations.  In  truth, 
upon  the  appearance  of  Herzl’s  pamphlet,  Doctor 
Giidemann,  Chief  Rabbi  of  Vienna,  wrote  to  the 
author,  “  I  have  read  it  through,  and  find  nothing 
in  it  to  criticise.5’  *  In  the  same  manner,  Doctor 
J.  H.  Diinner,  Chief  Rabbi  of  North  Holland, 
a  well-known  Talmudic  authority,  welcomed  the 
Zionist  program  from  the  standpoint  of  traditional 
Judaism,  though  carefully  distinguishing  between 
that  program  and  the  fulfillment  of  Messianic 


ZIONISM 


prophecy,10  an  opinion  concurred  in  by  Doctor  M. 
Friedlander,  the  learned  principal  of  Jews’  College, 
London.11 

The  greatest  opposition,  however,  came  from 
the  Reform  wing  of  the  Jewish  Church.  Under 
this  designation  I  comprehend  all  those  Jews  who 
believe  that  a  certain  evolution  must  take  place 
in  religious  formulae  as  well  as  in  religious  forms, 
and  who  hold  that  in  every  age  Judaism  can 
and  must  fit  itself  to  the  changed  conditions  in 
which  it  finds  itself.  This  opposition  was  to  be 
expected.  The  central  thought  of  the  whole  Re¬ 
form  movement  had  been  the  disassociation,  in  a 
large  measure,  of  religion  and  nationality,  the 
insistence  upon  the  universality  of  the  Jewish  re¬ 
ligion,  and  the  hope  of  Messianism  (a  term  which 
I  use  merely  for  want  of  a  better),  in  the  promul¬ 
gation  of  which  the  Jews  were  to  take  an  active 
part.  It  will  be  seen  readily  that  such  ideals  mil¬ 
itated,  in  some  material  points,  against  the  funda¬ 
mental  theories  of  Jewish  nationalism  and  of 
Zionism.  Jewish  nationality  had  no  meaning  for 
those  who  held  such  views.  In  fact,  the  old  Tal¬ 
mudic  dictum,  “  The  laws  of  the  land  in  which  the 
Jews  live  are  the  laws  that  must  be  obeyed,”  12 
had  been  reiterated  times  without  number,  and 

98 


THEODOR  HERZL 


had  been  stretched  almost  beyond  recognition. 
Wherever  a  conflict  occurred  between  the  laws  of 
the  state  and  the  Jewish  law,  there  was  a  tendency 
to  decide  in  favor  of  the  former.  The  dispersion 
of  the  Jews  was  held  to  be  providential  and  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  propagation  of  the  monotheistic 
faith.  Any  undue  concentration,  therefore,  worked 
counter  to  divine  purpose,  and,  putting  the  hands 
of  the  clock  back,13  delayed  unduly  the  consumma¬ 
tion  of  the  hope  which  was  the  well-spring  of 
Judaism. 

Even  in  Russia  this  distinction  between  what 
may  be  called  Jewish  Jews  and  un-Jewish  Jews  was 
apparent.  While  the  chief  Hebrew  newspapers, 
Ha-Meliz  and  Ha-Zefirah,  welcomed  Zionism,  the 
Voskhod,  written  in  Russian,  was  violently  opposed 
to  it.  Advanced  Jewish  Reform  in  Germany  and  in 
America  was  fully  prepared  to  take  such  an  attitude 
of  resistance.  It  had  removed  all  mention  of  Zion 
and  Jerusalem  from  the  official  prayer  book.  But 
in  other  centers  the  hope  of  the  restoration  still 
remained  as  an  integral  part  of  Jewish  doctrine  as 
expressed  in  Jewish  prayers,  and  these  had  to  be 
explained  away.  The  Chief  Rabbi  of  Vienna  had 
revised  his  former  attitude;  he  now  declared  that 
“  Zion  ”  was  nothing  but  a  symbol  of  the  future 

99 


ZIONISM 


of  Judaism  and  of  the  world,  that  the  role  of  the 
Jews  lies  in  the  very  opposite  direction  to  that 
preached  by  Zionism — as  solvers  of  nationalism  and 
preachers  of  internationalism.14  Lucien  Wolf  con¬ 
cedes  that  the  highest  traditional  ideal  of  Judaism 
is  undoubtedly  national,  which  he,  however,  quali¬ 
fies  by  adding,  “  It  is  not  the  nation  of  a  kept 
principality,  but  the  holy  nation  of  a  kingdom  of 
priests.”  15  This  is  also  the  central  thought  of 
Doctor  K.  Kohler,  who  characterizes  the  mission  of 
the  Jews  to  be  “  not  only  spiritual  or  religious  in 
character,”  but  also  “  social  and  intellectual,”  and 
he  opposes  to  official  Zionism  what  he  calls  the 
“  true  Zionism,”  which  “  demands  of  the  Jews  to  be 
martyrs  in  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice  and 
peace.”  18  Along  similar  lines,  Claude  Montefiore 
proclaims  that  the  Jews  must  continue  “  to  fight 
the  good  fight,  not  to  despair,  but  with  self-purifica¬ 
tion  and  brave  endurance  to  await  the  better  time 
that  civilization  will  shortly  bring,  when  their 
fellow-citizens  will  claim  them  as  their  own.”  1T 
And,  as  regards  the  immediate  question,  as  it  pre¬ 
sented  itself  in  Eastern  Europe,  especially  in  Russia 
and  Roumania,  a  somewhat  unhealthy  optimism 
reigned.  The  parole  was  given  out,  “  The  Russo- 
Jewish  question  must  be  solved  in  Russia  itself,” 

100 


THEODOR  HERZL 


and  various  attempts  were  made  to  bring  about  the 
betterment  of  the  situation  in  Roumania  by  diplo¬ 
matic  and  economic  pressure.  In  both  instances 
failure  waited  upon  the  efforts. 

But,  in  addition  to  the  doctrinal  considerations 
noted  above,  which  held  many  critics  of  Zionism  as 
in  a  vise,  there  was  added  a  certain  solicitude  and 
mistrust,  an  apprehension  that  Zionism  might  bring 
in  its  wake  a  catastrophe  boding  evil  to  the  political 
positions  won  by  the  Jews  in  so  many  modern 
civilized  states.  Continental  anti-Semitism  had 
made  much  of  the  charge  that  the  Jews  were 
strangers  in  the  various  lands  of  the  Diaspora,  and 
had  urged  that  they  be  treated  as  such  in  all  future 
legislation.  It  was  feared  by  many  that  Zionism 
justified  such  a  charge,  and  would  give  a  handle 
to  all  manner  of  obloquy  that  might  be  cast  upon  the 
Jews  as  not  being  full-fledged  citizens  of  the  states 
in  which  they  lived. 

They  [the  Zionists]  are  part-authors  of  the  anti-Semitism  which 
they  profess  to  slay,  wrote  Laurie  Magnus.18  For  how  can 
European  countries  which  the  Jews  propose  to  “  abandon  ”  justify 
their  retention  of  the  Jews?  And  why  should  civil  equality  have 
been  won  by  the  strenuous  exertions  of  the  Jews,  if  the  Jews 
themselves  be  the  first  to  “  evacuate  ”  their  position  and  to  claim 
the  bare  courtesy  of  “foreign  visitors”? 

101 


ZIONISM 


The  same  disquietude  was  exhibited  in  other 
quarters,  and  a  certain  chauvinism  which  was 
deemed  necessary  as  a  counterblast  to  Zionist  propa¬ 
ganda.  In  one  part  of  the  Jewish  world  the  Central 
Conference  of  American  Rabbis  declared: 

Such  [/.  e.  Zionist]  attempts  do  not  benefit,  but  infinitely  harm, 
our  Jewish  brethren  where  they  are  still  persecuted,  by  confirming 
the  assertion  of  their  enemies  that  the  Jews  are  foreigners  in  the 
countries  in  which  they  are  at  home,  and  of  which  they  are 
everywhere  the  most  loyal  and  patriotic  citizens.13 

In  another  part  of  the  world,  Professor  Ludwig 
Geiger  sounded  the  German  note  on  the  Jewish 
clarion : 

Zionism  is  as  dangerous  to  the  German  spirit  as  are  social 
democracy  and  ultramontanism.  .  .  .  The  German  Jew  who 
has  a  voice  in  German  literature  must,  as  he  has  been  accustomed 
to  for  the  last  century  and  a  half,  look  upon  Germany  alone  as 
his  fatherland,  upon  the  German  language  as  his  mother  tongue, 
and  the  future  of  the  German  nation  must  remain  the  only  one 
upon  which  he  bases  his  hopes.  Any  desire  to  form  together  with 
his  coreligionists  a  people  outside  of  Germany  is,  not  to  speak 
of  its  impracticability,  downright  thanklessness  towards  the  nation 
in  whose  midst  he  lives — a  chimera;  for  the  German  Jew  is  a 
German  in  his  national  peculiarities,  and  Zion  is  for  him  the  land 
only  of  the  past,  not  of  the  future.20 

Indeed,  the  dissonance  grew  so  great  as  to  be¬ 
come  dangerous.  The  opponents  of  Zionism  were 

102 


THEODOR  HERZL 


ready  to  appeal  for  outside  help  in  order  to  put 
down  the  unwelcome  intruder.  The  inauspicious 
effect  of  such  a  course,  when  it  had  been  tried  in 
the  past,  cried  out  aloud  against  a  renewal  of  the 
attempt.  One  remembers  all  that  happened  at  the 
time  of  the  Second  Monarchy,  when  Hellenists  and 
anti-Hellenists  called  in  the  secular  arm  in  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  internal  difficulties;  the  dangers  to  which 
the  Prussian  Jewish  communities  exposed  them¬ 
selves  in  1 8 17, 21  when  the  Government  was  invited 
to  inhibit  the  introduction  of  reform  services,  or 
again  in  1843, 22  when  the  Senate  of  Frankfort-on- 
the-Main  was  called  in  to  inforce  a  ritual  provision. 
Yet  the  suggestion  of  the  same  Professor  Geiger, 
that  “  the  withdrawal  of  citizen’s  rights  appears 
to  be  the  necessary  consequence  of  German  enact¬ 
ments  against  Zionism,  the  only  answer  the  German 
national  conscience  can  give,”  can  only  be  construed 
as  an  invitation  to  the  German  Government  to 
come  to  the  aid  of  the  opponents  of  Zionism. 

Happily  this  was  the  expression  only  of  an  in¬ 
dividual,  and  fell  flat  because  of  the  very  exuber¬ 
ance  of  its  chauvinism.  Yet  the  feeling  in  Germany 
was  strong  enough  to  bring  forth  a  public  pro¬ 
nouncement  on  the  part  of  the  Association  of 
Rabbis  in  Germany  (July  16,  1897),  which  de¬ 
clared  23 


103 


ZIONISM 


that  the  attempts  of  the  Zionists  to  found  a  Jewish  national 
state  in  Palestine  are  contrary  to  the  Messianic  promises  of  Juda¬ 
ism  as  laid  down  in  Holy  Writ  and  in  the  later  religious  authori¬ 
ties;  that  Judaism  demands  of  its  adherents  to  serve  the  state  in 
which  they  live  and  in  every  way  to  further  its  national  interests; 
but  that  no  opposition  thereto  can  be  seen  in  the  noble  plan  to 
colonize  Palestine  with  Jewish  agriculturalists,  because  that  plan 
has  no  connection  with  the  founding  of  a  national  state. 

The  limitation  contained  in  the  last  sentences  of 
the  foregoing  declaration  evidently  foreshadowed 
a  compromise,  or,  at  least,  it  suggested  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  an  entente .  Not  only  would  it  remove 
the  discussion  from  what  was  evidently  a  field  of 
battle;  it  squared  the  radical  opponents  of  Zionism 
with  the  Orthodox  wing,  and  removed  the  taint  of 
indifference  to  the  uplifting  of  Palestine.  In  all 
ententes,  of  course,  there  must  be  a  certain  limita¬ 
tion  on  both  sides ;  but  the  limitation  demanded  of 
the  Zionists  was  one  which  in  good  conscience  they 
could  not  possibly  accept.  It  meant  a  return  to 
simple  Chovevi  Zionism,  with  just  those  elements 
eradicated  which  constituted  the  propelling  force 
and  individuality  of  the  new  movement.  It  signi¬ 
fied  a  reaction  to  the  older  method  of  solving 
Jewish  difficulties,  and  it  took  no  account  of  the 
palpable  fact  that  all  attempts  at  a  philanthropic 
solution  had  proved  failures.  It  was  Jewish  nation- 

104 


THEODOR  HERZL 


alism  that  offended  the  taste  of  these  opponents. 
But  nationalism  was  the  very  heart  of  Zionism. 
Without  it  all  the  other  members  would  become 
atrophied.  The  contending  positions  were  thus 
clearly  defined:  the  two  sides  had  joined  issue. 

The  complaint  has  been  raised  in  some  quarters 
that  by  insisting  upon  its  propaganda  Zionism  has 
caused  a  split  and  a  division  in  the  Jewish  ranks; 
that  it  has  set  community  against  community;  even, 
at  times,  house  against  house.  The  impeachment 
is  perhaps  true,  but  a  complaint  on  that  account 
is  unwarranted.  A  large  and  dispersed  community, 
such  as  the  Jewish,  is  bound  to  exhibit  much  diver¬ 
sity  as  its  opinions  develop.  It  would  mean  spiritual 
death,  were  absolute  uniformity  to  be  its  char¬ 
acteristic,  more  especially  at  a  time  when  so  large 
a  proportion  of  its  members  were  in  sufferance,  and 
when  the  outlook  was  so  absolutely  dreary.  The 
first  three-quarters  of  the  nineteenth  century  had 
been  fruitful  of  the  great  questions  connected  with 
the  attainment  of  civic  freedom  and  political 
equality  as  far  as  concerned  the  relation  of  the  Jews 
to  the  outside  world.  Within  the  community, 
the  battle  had  raged  over  the  right  of  individual  and 
collective  freedom  in  religious  matters.  In  Western 
Jewries  the  battle  for  civic  and  political  freedom 

105 


ZIONISM 


had  been  won.  As  regards  religious  freedom  within 
the  community,  one  cannot  help  feeling  that  the 
debate  had  been  “  talked  out,”  but  with  a  sort  of 
tacit  understanding  that  the  right  demanded  had 
been  conceded. 

When  we  read  the  Jewish  newspapers  of  the  day 
or  peruse  the  reports  of  the  various  Rabbinical  Con¬ 
ferences,  we  are  struck  with  the  meagerness  and 
paltriness  of  the  questions  at  issue,  when  compared 
with  the  exhausting  passions  they  called  forth. 
But  this  meagerness  is  only  apparent,  not  real. 
For  the  underlying  idea  was  to  make  possible  the 
further  development  of  Jewish  law,  so  that  it 
should  not  become  petrified,  as  it  had  threatened 
to  become  in  the  Shulhan  Arnk.  So  uncompro¬ 
mising  a  radical  as  Samuel  Holdheim  was  acknowl¬ 
edged,  even  by  his  fiercest  opponents,  to  be  a  studied 
Talmudist.  His  Maamar  ha-Ishut,  a  memorable 
treatise  designed  to  advance  the  position  of  women 
as  members  of  the  Synagogue,  is  a  piece  of  fine 
Talmudic  reasoning.  At  the  various  conferences, 
another  Reformer,  though  less  uncompromising, 
Abraham  Geiger,  made  his  demands  from  the 
basis  of  Talmudic  law;  as  likewise  did  Samuel 
Adler,  later  minister  at  Temple  Emanuel  in  New 
York.  Without  prejudice  it  may  be  said  that  an 

106 


THEODOR  HERZL 


untoward  fate  prevented  the  two  parties  at  the 
conferences  from  coming  together  and  directing 
future  development.  But  the  more  conservative 
wing  evidently  took  fright,  and,  through  their  re¬ 
treat,  not  only  emphasized  the  cleft  between  them 
and  their  opponents,  but  also  drove  the  opponents 
further  and  further  afield  from  the  traditional  basis. 

These  interminable  bouts  in  regard  to  minor 
points  connected  with  the  synagogue  service  and 
with  ritual  observances  palled  upon  the  palate,  and 
some  new  vivifying  force  was  necessary  to  gal¬ 
vanize  the  body  politic.  This  new  force  was  Zion¬ 
ism.  In  the  face  of  this  question  all  others  paled, 
so  that  many  wondered  how  the  older  questions 
could  ever  have  called  forth  the  feeling  and  the 
fire  they  did.  The  national  question  became  an 
international  Jewish  one  in  the  highest  sense  of  the 
term.  It  set  the  Jews  to  thinking  hard.  I  cannot 
see  that  anything  has  been  lost  by  the  fierceness 
with  which  the  battle  raged.  On  the  contrary, 
much  has  been  won  that  will  work  permanent  ad¬ 
vantage.  A  question  has  been  put  that  is  one  of 
life  and  death.  It  has  called  into  the  firing-line  of 
each  of  the  two  parties  the  most  experienced  and 
the  best-tried  warriors. 


[Notes,  pp.  223-224] 
107 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 

I  have  said  that  the  summoning  of  the  Congress 
was  the  first  constructive  work  attempted  by  Herzl. 
Its  importance  lay  in  the  fact  that  it  was  not  only 
to  be  the  means  for  concentrating  various  efforts 
that  were  being  made  towards  a  common  goal,  but 
in  itself  it  was  the  announcement  of  a  definite  policy. 
That  policy  is  intimately  connected  with  all  Zionist 
endeavor.  It  meant  organization,  and,  what  is 
more,  organization  upon  a  democratic  basis.  It  may 
be  said  with  truth  that  no  such  attempt  had  been 
made  since  the  times  immediately  following  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  polity.  For  since  that 
time  the  Jews  had  lived  as  mere  scattered  com¬ 
munities.  They  had  been  held  together  in  a  loose 
and  much  disjointed  brotherhood,  a  brotherhood 
of  bondage  for  the  most  part,  informed  by  a 
spiritual  ideal.  But  something  more  than  this  was 
needed  in  a  world  of  hard  fact.  Common  forms  of 
worship  and  a  common  ghettohood  had  been  the 
clasp  that  kept  the  communities  from  going  too  far 

108 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


asunder.  The  walls  of  the  Ghetto,  however,  had 
fallen,  and  the  forms  of  worship  tended  to  differ¬ 
entiate  more  and  more.  The  danger  of  complete 
disintegration  was  very  real. 

Even  then  no  endeavor  was  evident  to  reunite 
the  scattered  remnants  for  common  action  along 
any  one  line.  It  is  true  that  the  Alliance  Israelite 
Universelle  had  had  this  purpose  at  its  inception; 
its  name  indicates  this.  But  it  never  realized  its 
high  aim.  In  the  nature  of  things,  it  was  impos¬ 
sible.  The  broad  basis  was  wanting,  upon  which 
alone  such  a  fabric  could  be  built  up,  and  the  leaders 
were  necessarily  impotent  to  resist  the  claims  of 
French  nationalism,  which  effectively  mastered  their 
Jewish  feeling.  In  a  short  time,  sister-societies 
grew  up  in  Austria,  England,  and  Germany,  that 
were  as  naturally  in  the  bonds  of  their  own  country’s 
nationalism  as  the  parent  society. 

Democracy,  too,  was  at  bottom  dear  to  the  Jew¬ 
ish  heart.  The  Jews  have  always  shown  a  strong 
individualistic  tendency.  It  can  be  followed  right 
through  their  history.  It  is  evident  in  the  sterner 
Biblical  times ;  according  to  one  version,  the  very  in¬ 
stitution  of  kingship  was  not  really  in  accord  with 
the  divine  wish.1  It  comes  to  light  during  the 
struggles  of  the  Second  Commonwealth.  The 

109 


8 


ZIONISM 


Jewish  communities  in  Europe  were  democratic  in 
their  form  of  government  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
With  the  passing  of  the  priestly  functions,  the  last 
shadow  of  special  prerogative  vanished  away.2  The 
Synagogue  knew  no  priesthood;  no  privileged  class 
exercised  functions  that  were  impossible  for  the 
humblest  congregant.  It  is  only  in  such  deformed 
products  of  religious  exaltation  as  Hasidism  that 
the  semblance  of  functional  authority  has  made  its 
appearance.  In  Germany,  the  office  of  Landes- 
rabbiner  was  often  forced  upon  the  Jewish  com¬ 
munities  by  the  state  for  purposes  of  more  active 
supervision  of  the  congregations.  In  England  the 
Chief  Rabbi  has  gradually  been  shorn  of  all  real 
power.  The  Grand  Rabbin  de  France  has  been 
“  Grand  ”  mainly  from  the  government  point  of 
view,  notwithstanding  the  personal  excellence  of  the 
holders  of  the  position.  In  Italy,  nearly  every 
rabbi  of  a  large  community  is  a  Rabbino  Maggiore. 
Every  attempt  to  establish  even  a  spiritual  headship 
seems  to  have  failed.  It  is  only  in  the  nearer  East 
that  a  certain  amount  of  power  was  always  granted 
to  either  the  lay  or  the  spiritual  head  of  the  Jewish 
bodies,  from  the  Resh  Geluta  (Exilarch)  in  Baby¬ 
lon  down  to  the  Hakam  Bashis  of  modern  Moham¬ 
medan  countries.  And,  indeed,  it  is  one  of  the  argu- 

110 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


ments  usually  brought  forward  against  the  Zionist 
platform  that  the  Jew  is  assumed  to  be  unwilling  to 
subject  his  own  will  to  that  of  other  Jews.  Yet, 
without  any  organization,  no  concerted  action  was 
possible.  Was  it  now  to  prove  successful  on  a 
broad  democratic  and  secular  basis,  and  in  a  manner 
that  made  the  leaders  as  it  were  responsible  min¬ 
isters  to  the  people  at  large? 

Regarded  from  yet  another  point  of  view, 
the  Congress  idea  was  of  significance.  The  Jews 
had  had  no  forum  from  the  boards  of  which  they 
could  speak  to  the  world  at  large  outside.  The 
non-Jewish  world  has  always  known  very  little  of 
real  Jewish  sentiment.  Whenever  it  has  tried  to 
understand,  it  has  usually  misunderstood  it.  This 
was,  in  a  measure,  the  fault  of  the  Jews  themselves, 
and  various  attempts  have  been  made  by  rabbinical 
associations  and  by  a  modern  vernacular  press  to 
remove  this  reproach.  It  is  not  belittling  these 
laudable  efforts  to  hold  them  to  have  been  insuffi¬ 
cient  for  the  purpose.  They  neither  spoke  with 
incorporate  authority,  nor  were  their  utterances 
received  as  having  been  made  in  coram  publicam. 
A  Congress  of  Jews,  speaking  with  a  delegated 
authority  in  the  name  of  a  large  body  of  the  people, 
holding  its  deliberations  in  public,  and  in  that  way 

111 


ZIONISM 


attracting  the  attention  of  Europe  and  America, 
was  calculated  to  have  a  wide  hearing  and  serve 
the  cause  of  the  Jews  in  general. 

It  has  been  argued  that  the  Zionists  arrogated  to 
themselves  an  office  they  did  not  in  reality  possess, 
that  of  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  whole  Jewish 
people,  though  they  represented  merely  a  section 
of  that  people.  The  arraignment  is  not  without 
some  justification,  which,  however,  on  second 
thought,  is  more  seeming  than  real.  It  is  true 
that  only  a  portion  of  the  Jewish  people  stood 
sponsor  to  the  idea  of  the  Congress,  but  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  in  this  respect  a  great  part  of  the 
whole  body  was  quite  inarticulate.  It  had  little 
thought  for  anything  beyond  its  own  individual  and 
present  needs.  There  were  no  means  at  hand  to 
make  its  voice  heard,  and,  had  it  been  possible  to 
take  a  poll,  it  would  be  hazardous  to  presume  the 
result.  In  addition,  of  all  Jews  it  was  the  Zionists 
who  had  the  lustiest  wish  to  live,  who  desired  action 
that  would  keep  the  Jews  together  as  a  people. 
This  is  said  without  prejudice  to  the  non-Zionist 
camp,  and  without  any  intention  to  brand  those  who 
did  not  agree  with  them  as  less  good  Jews  than  the 
Zionists  thought  themselves  to  be.  Nor  did  the 
Congress  ever  hide,  or  seek  to  hide,  the  fact  that  it 

112 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


had  its  many  opponents.  But  it  felt  that  its  composi¬ 
tion  had  a  certain  universally  Jewish  character. 
It  was  made  up  of  delegates  representing  all  the 
various  phases  of  Jewish  life  and  thought — Ortho¬ 
dox,  Reform,  indifferent  in  religious  matters,  and 
frankly  non-religious,  Chovevi  Zionists,  and  pure 
nationalists.  Looked  at  from  this  point  of  view, 
the  assumption  of  the  Congress  to  speak  for  what 
has  been  well  called  Catholic  Israel 3  was  not  the 
presumption  it  seemed  to  be  at  first  sight. 

It  had  been  intended  to  hold  the  First  Congress 
in  Munich.  That  it  met  in  Basel  was  due  to  the 
opposition  of  the  official  Jewish  community  in  the 
first-named  city.  When  one  reads  the  various  pro¬ 
nouncements  made  at  the  time  against  the  holding 
of  the  Congress,  even  the  lapse  of  years  does  not 
lessen  one’s  astonishment,  for  the  leading  motive 
seems  to  have  been  one  of  fear  and  of  dread — fear 
of  a  public  discussion  of  Jewish  problems,  dread  of 
the  results  likely  to  follow  any  success  the  Zionists 
might  achieve.  In  the  circumstances,  Herzl  and 
his  friends  had  the  proper  instinct  in  yielding.  It 
would  have  been  a  disservice  to  the  Jewish  cause 
to  have  exhibited  Jewish  dissension  to  the  world  in 
so  palpable  a  form.  It  would  have  been  a  calamity 
for  the  new  movement  to  have  had  its  birth  at- 


113 


ZIONISM 


tended  by  strife  and  discord.  Passive  resistance 
might  be  overcome  and  overwhelmed;  active  op¬ 
position,  however,  might  have  proven  a  death-blow. 

The  First  Congress  was,  therefore,  held  in  Basel, 
in  August,  1897.  It  was,  to  a  large  extent,  pre¬ 
paratory.  It  was  a  manifestation,  not  only  to  the 
Jewish,  but  also  to  the  non-Jewish  world.  But  its 
chief  import  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  drew  up  a 
declaration  which,  in  its  opening  paragraph,  has 
become  the  watchword  of  the  whole  movement, 
and  which  is  universally  known  as  “  the  Basel  Pro¬ 
gram.”  This  paragraph  affirms  that  “  the  object 
of  Zionism  is  to  establish  for  the  Jewish  people  a 
publicly  and  legally  assured  home  in  Palestine.” 
The  terseness  with  which  this  expression  is  worded 
makes  some  explanation  necessary.  The  words 
“  publicly  and  legally  assured  ”  in  themselves  em¬ 
phasize  the  broad  view  taken  of  the  question.  In 
bringing  it  to  the  attention  of  the  world,  the  Con¬ 
gress  laid  stress  upon  the  fact  that  what  was  de¬ 
manded  was  a  right  and  not  a  favor,  and  the  Jewish 
masses  counted  upon  the  assistance  of  more  fortu¬ 
nate  peoples  in  attaining  the  status  which  these 
enjoyed.  In  a  negative  way  it  suggested  that  the 
root  of  the  whole  business  lay  in  the  fact  that  the 
Jews  as  a  people  had  no  home,  and,  such  being  the 

114 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


case,  they  became  easily  the  play-ball  of  contending 
factions  and  of  warring  interests.  But  that  home, 
to  be  effectively  assured  to  the  Jewish  people,  must 
be  “  legally  ”  recognized  as  such  by  the  forces  that 
controlled  the  forward  movement  of  modern  civili¬ 
zation.  For  a  home  under  other  conditions  might 
become  as  insecure  as  the  present  tenure  in  various 
lands.  International  recognition  was  imperatively 
needed. 

There  were  also  added  the  important  words  “  in 
Palestine.”  They  mark  a  step  forward  in  the 
program  as  originally  laid  down  in  the  Juden- 
staat.  It  will  be  remembered  that  there  Herzl  had 
in  mind  Palestine  or  any  other  country  that  might 
be  found  suitable.  The  declaration  evidently  takes 
account  of  only  one  country,  and  as  Herzl  was  the 
one  who  finally  formulated  it,  the  words  denote  a 
distinct  change  in  his  mental  attitude.  What  was 
the  cause  of  this  change?  It  is  not  far  to  seek.  Not 
only  had  he  felt  as  it  were  the  pulse  of  the  Jewish 
people;  not  only  had  he  come  to  see  that  the  Jewish 
heart  was  beating  for  one  spot,  and  that  the  great 
forward  course  he  desired  his  people  to  take  was 
possible  only  if  it  was  fired  by  a  propelling  senti¬ 
ment.  Not  that  alone.  By  reason  of  his  closer 
contact  with  Jews  and  with  Jewish  affairs,  Herzl 

115 


ZIONISM 


had  at  last  found  himself,  and  had,  of  his  own  ac¬ 
cord,  reached  the  view  that  the  future  of  Israel  was 
bound  up  irrevocably  with  Palestine.  Though  the 
large  majority  of  his  followers  either  had  pre¬ 
ceded  him  on  this  road  of  mental  development, 
or  were  carried  forward  on  it  by  him,  a  number  re¬ 
mained  behind.  A  strong  minority  in  the  organiza¬ 
tion  and  in  the  Congress  insisted  upon  the  older 
standpoint,  and  formed  an  active  opposition,  which 
led  in  after  years  to  the  exciting  scenes  of  the  Sixth 
and  the  Seventh  Congress,  and  eventually  to  the 
formation  of  the  Ito,  or  territorialist  group. 

Ten  sessions  of  the  Congress  were  held  between 
1897  and  1 9 1 1 ;  from  1897  to  1901  yearly;  from 
that  time  forward  biennially.  I  have  said  that  a 
certain  change  had  taken  place  in  Herzl’s  attitude 
regarding  Palestine.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  he  still  held  to  the  large  political  view  of  the 
whole  question.  He  was,  above  all,  endowed  with 
the  qualities  of  a  statesman,  and  it  was  from  the 
statesman’s  angle  that  he  mapped  out  the  work  he 
and  the  organization  were  to  do.  Above  all,  he 
wanted  Zionism  to  move  on  a  lofty  and  generous 
plane.  He  was,  therefore,  a  determined  opponent 
of  the  Chovevi  Zionists,  not  so  much  because  of 
their  aims  as  because  of  their  methods.  In  his  vari- 


116 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


ous  presidential  addresses  to  the  Congress,  he  em¬ 
phasized  this  view  sufficiently.  He  did  not  believe 
anything  was  to  be  gained  by  what  he  called 
the  smuggling  of  a  few  families  into  Palestine. 
Such  a  policy  was,  he  thought,  unworthy  of  a  great 
cause,  and  a  source  of  prejudice  to  the  ultimate 
object  in  view.  He  believed  it  was  necessary  to 
advance  on  quite  different  lines,  to  secure,  first  and 
foremost,  the  political  rights,  without  which  any 
extended  colonization  was  practically  useless,  before 
proceeding  with  such  colonization.  In  this  manner 
he  came  to  be  looked  upon,  by  a  portion  even  of  his 
own  adherents,  as  an  opponent  of  Palestinian 
colonization.  Those  who  were  in  his  confidence 
knew  that  this  was  a  wrong  interpretation  to  put 
upon  his  attitude;  and,  in  the  state  in  which  the 
Turkish  Empire  was  at  that  time,  Herzl’s  attitude 
was  probably  right. 

Under  Abdul  Hamid,  Turkey  had  gone  steadily 
on  the  downward  track.  The  continual  interfer¬ 
ence  of  the  Palace  in  the  engagements  of  the  Porte 
had  brought  about  a  state  of  affairs  that  rendered 
all  things  precarious,  and  Herzl  felt  that  unless 
the  political  guarantees  were  first  secured  upon 
which  any  tenure  of  land  in  Palestine  was  held, 
the  Jewish  colonies  there  ran  the  risk  of  sudden 

117 


ZIONISM 


annihilation  at  almost  any  moment.  In  fact,  a 
warning  note  was  heard  in  the  year  1900.  In 
the  month  of  November  instructions  were  sent  to 
the  Vali  of  Beirut  not  to  permit  Jewish  visitors 
to  remain  in  Palestine  longer  than  three  months. 
They  had  also  to  be  provided  with  a  “  red  ticket,” 
as  a  sign  that  they  were  only  transient  guests. 
The  regulations  were  not  new.  They  had  been 
promulgated  some  twelve  years  previously,  but 
since  that  time  they  had  practically  remained  in 
abeyance.  Their  revival  naturally  struck  consterna¬ 
tion  to  the  hearts  of  all  those  concerned  for  the  wel¬ 
fare  and  growth  of  the  Palestinian  colonies.  To 
the  honor  of  two  of  the  great  powers,  Italy  and  the 
United  States,  it  must  be  said  that  they  made  an 
immediate  protest  on  the  ground  that  they  could 
not  allow  any  distinction  to  be  drawn  between  their 
Christian  and  their  Jewish  subjects  in  so  far  as 
treaty  rights  were  concerned.4  The  incident,  how¬ 
ever,  serves  to  show  that  there  was  some  reason  and 
much  ground  for  Herzl’s  fears. 

Herzl’s  negotiations  with  the  Sultan,  carried  on 
in  various  ways  between  the  years  1898  and  1903, 
seemed  to  lead  to  no  definite  result.  Of  these 
negotiations  more  will  be  said  later  on.  It  is 
perhaps  idle  to  speculate  now  upon  the  good  or 

118 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 

bad  faith  of  the  Sultan  in  the  various  offers  he 
made.  Even  if  they  had  been  in  good  faith,  the 
Jewish  people  refused  to  give  Herzl  the  means 
with  which  to  close  any  bargain.  They  were  suffi¬ 
ciently  unimaginative  to  decline  the  risk  of  a  few 
paltry  millions  in  getting  at  the  heart  of  the  evil, 
when  so  many  were  being  spent  yearly  in  trying  to 
make  good  its  ravages.  JTe  foul-weather  friends 
were  too  numerous  who  scented  danger  in  every 
trial  of  strength.  All  such  negotiations  are  long, 
arduous,  and  very  tortuous.  In  addition,  it  was 
impossible  to  keep  the  Congresses  fully  informed  of 
transactions  in  their  nature  private  and  only  pre¬ 
liminary.  Many  in  the  organization  itself  grew 
restless  and,  wanting  something  to  fan  their  faint¬ 
ing  courage,  demanded  a  quicker  tempo  and  more 
evident  results.  This  was  especially  true  of  two 
groups  in  the  Congress,  one  representing  the  older 
Chovevi  Zion  view,  and  composed  of  those  who 
were  Zionists  because  they  were  Chovevi  Zion¬ 
ists,  and  not  the  reverse,  and  to  whom  the  name 
Ziyyone  Zionists,  or  Zionists  a  outrance,  was  given ; 
the  other  made  up  of  pure  nationalists,  whose 
specific  interest  was  directed  to  Palestine  as  a  pos¬ 
sible  center  rather  than  the  only  possible  one.  It 
was  this  latter  group  that  was  most  insistent.  It 

119 


ZIONISM 


reasoned — and  the  reasoning  was  logical  from  its 
point  of  view — that  if  the  undertakings  with  the 
Sultan  were  likely  to  prove  abortive,  it  behooved 
the  Zionist  leaders  to  look  elsewhere  and  find 
another  land  in  which  the  much-desired  home 
could  be  established.  It  is  from  this  point  of 
view  that  we  must  regard  the  attempt  made  in 
1899  by  Davis  Trietsch  and  others  to  transfer 
Jewish  colonization  to  the  island  of  Cyprus.  Had 
the  economic  conditions  there  been  of  a  kind  to 
make  success  likely,  such  a  settlement  might  have 
been  regarded  as  a  stepping-stone  to  Palestinian 
colonization,  with  the  additional  advantage  of  the 
ordered  life  and  circumstances  which  had  been  in¬ 
troduced  into  that  island  since  the  agreement  be¬ 
tween  England  and  Turkey  had  placed  it  under 
British  administration.  But  the  mere  mention  of 
the  project  at  the  Third  Congress  (1899)  aroused 
such  violent  opposition  that  even  its  consideration 
was  rendered  impossible.5 

In  a  similar  light  the  concession  demanded  for 
a  Jewish  settlement  in  El-Arish  must  be  regarded. 
The  land  so  called  comprises  a  strip  of  territory  of 
about  one  thousand  square  kilometers.  It  is  sit¬ 
uated  to  the  south  of  Palestine,  and  forms  the  con¬ 
necting  link  between  that  country  and  Egypt;  as 

120 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 

it  were,  between  Asia  and  Africa.  One  can  almost 
say  that  it  is  a  no-man’s  land,  in  the  sense  that  it  is 
most  sparsely  settled,  and  whatever  natural  ad¬ 
vantages  it  may  possess  have  never  been  developed. 
It  was  under  Anglo-Egyptian  administration,  and 
any  tenure  obtained  there  would  be  certain.  It 
was  also  nearer  Palestine,  much  nearer  than 
Cyprus;  in  fact,  geographically  it  was  a  part  of 
that  country.  The  whole  matter  had  originally 
been  broached  by  the  German  Zionists  at  their 
yearly  meeting  in  May,  1901.  It  was  taken  up  by 
Herzl  in  the  autumn  of  1902,  as  he  himself  said, 
u  because  of  the  unsuccess  of  the  latest  negotia¬ 
tions  in  Constantinople  and  in  view  of  the  increas¬ 
ing  distress  [among  the  Jewish  masses].”6  The 
negotiations  opened  in  London  were  pursued  in 
Cairo,  and  at  the  beginning  of  1903  a  scientific  ex¬ 
pedition,  accompanied  by  a  delegate  representing 
the  Anglo-Egyptian  Government,  was  sent  thither 
to  report  upon  the  feasibility  of  the  plan.  The  re¬ 
port  of  this  commission  has  never  been  made  public; 
but  it  is  generally  understood  not  to  have  been  un¬ 
favorable.  The  negative  outcome,  however,  of  the 
whole  business  seems  to  have  been  due  to  personal 
considerations,  albeit  the  official  reason  given  out  by 
the  Anglo-Egyptian  Government  was  the  lack  of 

121 


ZIONISM 


water  there,  which  would  necessitate  the  use  of 
some  of  the  Nile  overflow  for  irrigation  purposes, 
and  this  could  not  be  spared  by  Egypt.  In  view  of 
what  was  to  follow,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
Anglo-Egyptian  Government  had  manifested  a  wise 
understanding  and  appreciation  of  Jewish  needs,  in 
showing  itself  willing  to  accord  to  a  Jewish  settle¬ 
ment  in  El-Arish,  should  such  be  finally  determined 
on,  a  Jewish  administration  and  certain  extended 
municipal  powers.  The  failure  is,  therefore,  deeply 
to  be  regretted,  as  such  a  settlement  would  have 
made  possible  an  experiment  in  Jewish  self-govern¬ 
ment  which  would  have  been  both  profitable  and  in¬ 
structive. 

The  spirit  in  which  the  British  Government  had 
treated  the  proposal  concerning  El-Arish  was  partic¬ 
ularly  pleasing  and  encouraging.  The  good-will  and 
support  of  the  statesmen  of  a  land  that  often  cham¬ 
pioned  the  rights  of  a  minority,  that  was  thoroughly 
imbued  with  liberal  ideas  and  tendencies,  and  that 
had  had  such  varied  experiences  in  colonization,  was 
rightly  looked  upon  by  Herzl  as  a  most  valuable 
asset.  The  “  Jewish  Colonial  Trust  ”  had  been 
established  in  London,  and,  though  the  Zionist 
movement  has  been  most  careful  not  to  identify 
itself  with  the  national  aspirations  of  any  one  of 

122 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 

the  great  or  small  powers,  the  British  Government 
may  have  felt  that  it  owed  it  some  kind  of  friendly 
tutelage.  It  is  probable  also  that  the  failure  of  the 
El-Arish  negotiations  weighed  in  the  balance,  at 
least  with  some  of  her  statesmen.  Joseph  Cham¬ 
berlain  was  at  that  time  the  most  powerful  figure 
in  the  English  Cabinet.  The  Boer  War  had  just 
been  ended,  and  Chamberlain  set  out  to  visit  the 
English  possessions  beyond  the  sea  in  South  and 
Eastern  Africa.  The  East-African  Protectorate 
stretches  from  the  Indian  Ocean,  with  Mombassa 
as  the  chief  port,  as  far  over  as  Lake  Tanganyika. 
It  was  while  visiting  this  country  that  Chamberlain 
conceived  the  idea  that  here  might  be  found  a 
convenient  place  for  the  Jewish  settlement  Herzl 
had  proposed  to  him  in  El-Arish. 

It  seems  certain  that  the  proposal  did  not  come, 
in  the  first  instance,  from  the  Zionists.  The  pos¬ 
sibility  of  such  a  settlement  had  been  mooted  in 
the  London  Jewish  Chronicle  in  July,  1903,  by 
a  correspondent,  Robert  P.  Yates,  who  was  entirely 
outside  of  the  Zionist  body.7  The  negotiations 
culminated  in  an  official  letter  dated,  from  the 
Foreign  Office,  August  14,  1903,  in  which  Sir 
Clement  Hill  writes  to  Mr.  L.  J.  Greenberg  in  re¬ 
gard  “  to  the  form  of  an  agreement  which  Doctor 

123 


ZIONISM 


Herzl  proposes  should  be  entered  into  between  his 
Majesty’s  Government  and  the  Jewish  Colonial 
Trust  Ltd.,  for  the  establishment  of  a  Jewish  settle¬ 
ment  in  East  Africa.”  The  letter  goes  on  to  say 
that  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne 

has  studied  the  question  with  the  interest  which  his  Majesty’s 
Government  must  always  take  in  any  well-considered  scheme  for 
the  amelioration  of  the  position  of  the  Jewish  race.  ...  If  a  site 
can  be  found  which  the  Trust  and  his  Majesty’s  commissioner 
consider  suitable,  and  which  commends  itself  to  his  Government, 
Lord  Lansdowne  will  be  prepared  to  entertain  favorably  proposals 
for  the  establishment  of  a  Jewish  colony  or  settlement  on  con¬ 
ditions  which  will  enable  the  members  to  observe  their  national 
customs  ....  the  details  of  the  scheme  comprising  as  its  main 
features  the  grant  of  a  considerable  area  of  land,  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  Jewish  official  as  the  chief  of  the  local  administration, 
and  permission  to  the  colony  to  have  a  free  hand  in  regard  to 
municipal  legislation  as  to  the  management  of  religious  and 
purely  domestic  matters,  such  local  autonomy  being  conditional 
upon  the  right  of  his  Majesty’s  Government  to  exercise  general 
control.3 

It  has  been  said  in  some  quarters,  and  I  think 
with  reason,  that  this  letter  marks  an  epoch  in 
Jewish  history.  No  Government  up  to  that  time  or 
since  has  put  itself  on  record  as  taking  up  the  Jewish 
cause  in  so  noble  and  so  whole-hearted  a  manner. 
It  is  not  concerned  with  individual  Jews  or  with  a 
small  community,  but  with  the  whole  “  Jewish 

124 


facing  p.  124 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


race”;  and  its  offer  contained  a  measure  of  self- 
government  which  might  well  tempt  the  most 
sanguine  nationalist:  a  grant  of  land,  a  Jewish  head 
official,  and  practical  autonomy  under  the  general 
control  of  the  home  Government.  Invitations  to 
the  Jews  to  settle  in  various  countries,  it  is  true, 
have  not  been  unknown.  The  case  of  Sultan 
Bayazid  II  of  Turkey  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century  is  in  point;  the  more  recent  (1912)  offer 
of  a  tract  of  land  in  Angola  by  the  Portuguese 
Republican  Government  may  also  be  cited.  But 
no  Government  has  ever  taken  the  step  to  invite 
the  formation  of  an  autonomous  settlement  of  the 
Jewish  people.  It  is  as  well  to  state  here  that 
official  Zionist  hopes  and  aspirations  had  never 
gone  beyond  that  point.  In  a  letter  dated  Decem¬ 
ber  14,  1903,  Doctor  Herzl  had  laid  down  the 
conditions  upon  which  alone  the  scheme  could  be 
acceptable.  These  were : 

1.  The  territory  has  to  be  sufficiently  extensive  to  admit  of  an 
immigration  of  such  a  character  as  should  be  eventually  a 
material  relief  to  the  pressure  which  to-day  exists  in  Eastern 
Jewry.  2.  It  follows  that  the  territory  has  to  be  one  colonizable 
by  such  a  people  as  ours.  3.  The  concession  has  to  be  invested 
with  such  autonomous  rights  as  would  insure  the  Jewish  character 
of  the  settlement;  and  4,  perhaps  governing  all,  the  enthusiasm 
of  our  own  people  in  respect  to  the  offer  has  to  be  of  such  a  nature 

125 


9 


ZIONISM 


as  will  overcome  all  the  obvious  difficulties,  which  under  most 
favorable  conditions  will  be  bound  to  arise  in  the  creation  of  the 
settlement.0 

It  is  true  that,  from  time  to  time,  some  Zionists 
of  more  stalwart  than  sober  faith,  have  spoken  of 
a  Jewish  state  fully  independent,  with  all  the  accom¬ 
paniments  and  appanages  belonging  thereto.  But 
the  more  sober  and  deliberate  judgment  of  those 
who  spoke  with  authority  has  never  gone  beyond 
the  borders  of  reasonableness.  The  “  Basel  Plat¬ 
form  ”  speaks  of  a  home ,  in  which  Jewish  aspira¬ 
tions  may  be  realized.  A  home  demands  security 
and  permanence;  and,  under  the  aegis  of  a  great 
and  liberal  power  and  with  a  measurable  amount 
of  autonomy,  such  a  home  could  be  more  readily 
procured  and  preserved  than  if  independence  were 
complete  and  unrestricted.  Besides,  where  at  the 
present  day  is  such  a  land  to  be  found  which  is  not 
in  the  possession,  or  at  least  within  the  purview,  of 
one  of  the  Powers? 

The  position  of  Herzl  was  indeed  difficult. 
The  letter  of  Sir  Clement  Hill  had  come  to  him 
almost  on  the  eve  of  the  Sixth  Congress  (August 
23-28,  1903).  The  delegates  were  tense  with  sup¬ 
pressed  emotion.  Herzl  had  just  returned  from 
St.  Petersburg,  where  he  had  been  in  consulta- 

126 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


tion  with  Witte  and  von  Plehve  in  the  endeavor 
to  mitigate  the  harshness  of  a  secret  circular 
which  the  latter  minister  had  issued  to  the  gov¬ 
ernors,  city  prefects,  and  chiefs  of  police,  putting 
a  ban  upon  all  Zionist  meetings  and  forbidding  all 
collections  for  Zionist  purposes.  Though  he  had  in 
a  measure  succeeded,  and  had  obtained  the  promise 
of  a  possible  mitigation  of  the  interdict,  his  action 
had  been  misunderstood,  especially  by  many  of  the 
Russian  delegates,  whose  natural  indignation  at  the 
cruelties,  for  most  of  which  they  held  von  Plehve 
personally  responsible,  made  them  distrust  the  min¬ 
ister  and  any  promise  given  at  his  hand.  By  pre¬ 
senting  the  letter  of  the  English  Government,  he 
ran  the  risk  also  of  alienating  the  Chovevi  Zion 
element  in  the  Congress,  who  were  known  to  be 
intransigent  on  the  subject  of  Palestine.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  was  quite  impossible  for  him,  as  it 
was  impossible  for  the  Congress,  to  ignore  so  gen¬ 
erous  an  action  on  the  part  of  a  leading  Govern¬ 
ment.  Even  if  the  offer  were  not  acceptable, 
courtesy — not  to  speak  of  political  exigency — de¬ 
manded  some  decision. 

In  what  light  Herzd  regarded  the  offer,  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  say.  It  would  be  indiscreet  to  go  be¬ 
hind  his  own  public  and  solemn  statements;  we 

127 


ZIONISM 


* 


must  wait  until  his  Memoirs  are  published  for 
complete  light  upon  the  subject.  But  it  is  permis¬ 
sible  to  conjecture  that  he  recognized  its  value  not 
only  intrinsically  but  also  as  a  political  weapon  to 
be  used  in  other  quarters.  The  negotiations  which 
he  had  been  conducting  in  Constantinople  seemed  to 
have  reached  a  blind  alley.  The  offers  made  to 
him  by  the  Sultan  at  various  times  were  such  as  he 
could  not  accept.  The  proposition  of  the  English 
Government  might  perhaps  open  the  eye  of  the 
Sultan  to  the  fact  that  places  other  than  Palestine 
were  possible  for  a  Jewish  “  home.”  And  then  he 
had  the  hope  that,  should  a  suitable  spot  be  found, 
other  forces  in  Jewry  might  join  in  the  effort,  or 
perhaps  do  the  work  themselves  after  the  way 
had  been  pointed  out  to  them.  In  point  of  fact, 
the  Jewish  Colonization  Association  did  at  first 
seem  disposed  to  lend  a  helping  hand.  It  withdrew, 
however,  upon  the  specious  plea  that  the  English 
Government  had  made  too  liberal  an  offer,  and 
that  the  political  and  economic  autonomy  suggested 
vitiated  the  whole  scheme. 

Those  who  were  present  at  the  Sixth  Congress 
remember  well  the  mutterings  that  presaged  the 
storm.  In  his  masterly  and  carefully-worded  open¬ 
ing  address,  Herzl  presented  the  offer  with  proper 

128 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 

words  of  recognition.  He  tried  to  make  it  clear 
that  this  was  not  an  alternative  for  Palestine,  that 
East  Africa  could  not  be  Zion,  and  Nordau  coined 
the  expression  N achtasyl  as  defining  the  use  to 
which  such  a  settlement  might  be  put.  But  the  Con¬ 
gress,  by  a  large  majority,  would  have  none  of  it. 
The  opposition  was  made  up  of  the  Democratic 
Fraction,  nearly  all  the  Russians,  the  Chovevi 
Zionists,  and  even  some  of  the  closest  friends  of 
Doctor  Herzl.  The  minority  was  composed  of 
some  nationalists  in  whom  the  old  ideas  still  re¬ 
mained  alive,  and  of  benevolent  Zionists  who  were 
only  lukewarm  political  followers  of  Herzl.  It  was 
perfectly  evident  that,  if  a  vote  on  the  question 
itself  had  been  taken  at  the  Sixth  Congress,  the 
offer  would  have  been  rejected  with  no  uncertain 
voice.  But  any  decision  at  that  moment  would 
have  been  ill-considered.  An  acrimonious  agita¬ 
tion  had  arisen,  and  the  judgment  of  both  partisans 
and  opponents  was  warped  and  prejudiced  by  senti¬ 
ment.  Nor  was  there  any  assurance  that  the  part 
of  the  Protectorate  in  view  was  at  all  suited  for 
colonization  by  Europeans.  The  country  had  been 
imperfectly  surveyed  and  studied  from  an  agro¬ 
nomic  and  economic  point  of  view.  Manifestly, 
the  one  proper  course  to  take  was  to  send  a  corn- 

129 


ZIONISM 


mission  of  inquiry,  upon  the  basis  of  whose  report 
an  intelligent  estimate  could  be  made  of  the  real 
value  of  the  whole  offer.  Such  a  line  of  conduct 
would  also  comport  with  the  dignity  of  all  the 
factors  involved.  It  would  stave  off  a  brusque 
refusal  of  a  magnanimous  proposal,  and  it  would 
allow  the  hand  of  time  to  calm  the  impassioned 
enthusiasm  of  both  sides.  The  proposition  was 
accepted  by  a  substantial  majority,  in  spite  of  a 
large  number  who  abstained  from  voting  at  all. 
Provision  was  also  made  for  a  special  meeting  of 
delegates  at  the  next  Congress,  at  which  the  report 
of  the  commission  should  be  discussed. 

It  is  necessary  to  insist  upon  the  subject  of  this 
vote ;  for  with  the  obstinacy  of  set  purpose  the  seem¬ 
ing  of  things  has  been  represented  as  a  fact,  and 
members  of  the  Congress  themselves  have  main¬ 
tained  that  this  was  a  vote  upon  the  offer  itself. 
Even  after  the  Congress  had  gone  apart,  the  con¬ 
fusion  persisted;  and  no  less  an  authority  than 
Israel  Zangwill  has  affirmed  that  the  sentiment  of 
the  delegates  was  clearly  in  favor  of  the  proposition. 
The  stenographic  report  of  the  Congress  is  sufficient 
evidence  how  mistaken  this  view  is.  The  Congress 
was,  in  its  largest  part,  strongly  opposed  to  ac¬ 
ceptance;  it  marked  its  opposition  by  passing  a 

130 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


resolution  prohibiting  the  use  of  any  Shekel  moneys 
or  of  any  property  of  the  Trust  for  the  purposes 
of  the  expedition.  The  Russian  members  of  the 
Central  Committee  (Actions  Committee)  went 
still  further,  and  made  a  demonstration  by  publicly 
quitting  the  Congress  session  together  with  some 
of  their  Russian  fellow-delegates. 

The  commission  which  went  out  to  East  Africa 
in  December,  1903,  made  its  report  to  the  Central 
Committee  in  May,  1904.  The  territory  examined 
and  delimited  by  the  British  Government  at  Herzl’s 
request  comprised  an  area  covering  some  six  thou¬ 
sand  square  miles,  and  was  known  as  the  Guas 
Ngishu  Plateau.  Although  the  members  of  the 
commission  did  not  agree  upon  all  points,  the  gen¬ 
eral  view  seemed  to  be  that  the  territory  would  be 
insufficient  for  any  large  number  of  Jewish  settlers, 
and  that  the  ground  was  fit  rather  for  grazing  than 
for  agriculture.  In  addition,  a  strong  opposition  to 
the  grant  had  developed  in  the  East  African  Protec¬ 
torate  itself.  Telegrams  from  Lord  Delamere,  the 
High  Commissioner  of  British  East  Africa,  from 
Lord  Hindlipp,  and  from  Sir  H.  H.  Johnston  ar¬ 
rived  at  the  Foreign  Office  couched  in  terms  that 
showed  the  difficulties  such  a  settlement  would  have 

131 


ZIONISM 


had  to  encounter.10  All  this  was  meat  for  the  Pales¬ 
tinian  enthusiasts. 

In  addition  several  lines  of  cleavage  were  be¬ 
ginning  to  show  themselves  within  the  ranks  of  the 
Congressists.  Perhaps  it  is  wrong  to  put  it  in  this 
way.  The  lines  had,  in  reality,  existed  from  the  very 
beginning  of  the  movement.  It  was  the  East  Afri¬ 
can  project  that  accentuated  them  and  made  them 
very  apparent.  Under  normal  conditions,  a  strong 
and  determined  Opposition  is  as  essential  in  a  Par¬ 
liament,  into  which  the  Congress  had  developed,  as 
is  a  Government  party.  It  has  the  double  function 
of  keeping  a  close  watch  upon  the  leaders  in  power 
and  of  taking  the  rudder  at  the  moment  a  change 
is  desired  or  becomes  necessary.  But  Jewish  con¬ 
ditions  have  never  been  normal  since  the  suppres¬ 
sion  of  Jewish  statehood,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  Zionist  movement  had  grown 
would  have  made  a  change  of  horses  while  in  the 
stream  a  most  precarious  undertaking.  Zionism 
was  still  in  the  formative  period  of  its  growth.  Its 
very  existence  was  at  times  dubious.  For  its  build¬ 
ing  up  it  needed  the  combined  efforts  of  all  parties. 
The  East  African  project,  acting  as  a  divisor,  was 
most  unfortunate  in  its  sequel. 

During  the  sessions  of  the  Sixth  Congress,  a 

132 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


Jewish  Congress  had  been  held  in  Palestine.  In 
ordinary  circumstances  such  a  gathering  would  have 
been  viewed  by  all  Zionists  with  satisfaction,  and 
been  accompanied  by  their  applause.  But  it  had 
been  organized  and  it  was  presided  over  by  Michael 
Ussischkin.  He  was  one  of  the  old  Russian  Zionist 
leaders,  a  man  of  much  merit  and  with  a  consider¬ 
able  following,  but  he  had  little  sympathy  with  the 
political  and  tactical  methods  of  Herzl.  He  was 
and  he  remained  a  Chovevi  Zionist;  and  the  organ¬ 
ization  which  this  Congress  proposed,  and  which 
was  to  include  representatives  of  Baron  Edmond 
de  Rothschild  and  of  the  Odessa  Committee,  the 
Jewish  Colonization  Association,  the  Alliance 
Israelite,  and  the  Ezra,  shows  that  its  object  was 
antagonistic  to  that  of  the  Zionist  Congresses,  and 
was  intended  rather  as  a  substitute  than  as  a  supple¬ 
ment. 

Most  of  the  Russian  leaders  went  even  further 
than  this.  They  broke  out  into  what  was  practical 
rebellion.  Those  of  them  who  were  members  of 
the  Central  Committee  met  at  Kharkoff  in  October, 
1903,  and  determined  to  found  a  committee  of 
their  own  within  the  Central  Committee.  They 
further  agreed  to  demand  from  Herzl  a  written 
promise  to  relinquish  the  East  African  project 

133 


ZIONISM 


prior  to  the  convening  of  the  Seventh  Congress 
and,  in  his  capacity  of  leader  of  the  Zionists,  to 
engage  in  no  further  territorial  schemes.  In  addi¬ 
tion,  he  was  to  be  required  to  make  a  formal 
promise  to  take  up  the  work  in  Palestine  and 
further  the  acquisition  of  land  there  and  in  Syria 
with  the  moneys  of  the  National  Fund.  A  threat 
was  also  attached  to  the  promises  demanded — sup¬ 
plies  were  to  be  withheld  from  Vienna  in  case  of  a 
refusal.  This  was  an  all  too  evident  attempt  to 
force  Herzl’s  hand  and,  by  means  of  caucus  rule, 
to  limit  the  free  exercise  of  the  will  of  the  majority 
in  the  Congress.  When  these  various  proceedings 
became  known,  much  indignation  was  expressed  at 
the  methods  that  had  been  adopted  and  the  want 
of  tact  exhibited,  due  no  doubt  to  a  combination 
of  lack  of  experience  and  excess  of  zeal.  The 
excitement  made  its  way  into  other  quarters,  no¬ 
tably  into  England,  where  a  cross-current  of  local 
English  patriotism  in  favor  of  the  British  offer 
came  in  to  trouble  the  waters  still  more.  By  a  sort 
of  tacit  understanding,  however,  the  resolutions  of 
the  Kharkoff  Conference  were  permitted  to  drop 
out  of  sight,  and  nothing  further  was  heard  of  the 
new  organization  projected  in  Palestine.  In  the 
meantime,  the  Zionist  leader  had  closed  his  eyes, 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


worn  out  by  the  struggles  of  the  last  years  and  ex¬ 
hausted  by  the  storm  of  which  he  had  been  the 
center,  one  may  say  innocently.  Though  he  had 
been  harshly  and  unjustly  treated,  his  generous 
nature  bore  no  malice.  He  was  even  filled  with 
admiration  that  those  for  whom  in  the  first  instance 
the  relief  measure  had  been  projected  should  spurn 
it  because  it  seemed  to  involve  a  divergence  from 
their  ideal. 

The  Seventh  Congress,  of  1905,  was  to  decide 
upon  the  East  African  offer.  The  Russians  had 
taken  time  by  the  forelock,  and,  at  a  conference 
held  at  Vilna  (January  14,  1905),  had  expressed 
the  view  that  any  attempt  at  colonization  outside 
of  Palestine  “  was  opposed  to  both  the  historical 
ideal  of  Zionism  and  to  the  Basel  Platform.”  The 
conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  special  Congress  of 
July  30  was  foregone.  The  coalition  comprising 
the  Government  Party,  the  Ziyyone  Zionists,  and 
the  Mizrachi  Fraction  were  known  to  be  in  a  large 
majority.  I  quote  in  full  the  final  resolution  that 
brought  to  an  end  the  discussion  on  the  subject 
within  the  ranks  of  the  Congress : 


The  Seventh  Zionist  Congress  declares:  The  Zionist  organiza¬ 
tion  stands  firmly  by  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Basel 


135 


ZIONISM 


Program,  namely,  “  The  establishment  of  a  legally-secured, 
publicly-recognized  home  for  the  Jewish  people  in  Palestine,” 
and  it  rejects,  either  as  an  end  or  as  a  means  of  colonizing, 
activity  outside  Palestine  and  its  adjacent  lands.  The  Congress 
resolves  to  thank  the  British  Government  for  its  offer  of  a  territory 
in  British  East  Africa,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  there  a 
Jewish  settlement  with  autonomous  rights.  A  commission  having 
been  sent  out  to  examine  the  territory,  and  having  reported 
thereon,  the  Congress  resolves  that  the  Zionist  organization  shall 
not  engage  itself  further  with  the  proposal.  The  Congress 
records  with  satisfaction  the  recognition  accorded  by  the  British 
Government  to  the  Zionist  organization  in  its  desire  to  bring 
about  a  solution  of  the  Jewish  problem,  and  expresses  a  sincere 
hope  that  it  may  be  accorded  the  further  good  offices  of  the  British 
Government  where  available  in  any  matter  it  may  undertake  in 
accordance  with  the  Basel  Program.  The  Seventh  Zionist  Con¬ 
gress  recalls  and  emphasizes  the  fact  that,  according  to  article  i 
of  the  statutes  of  the  Zionist  organization,  the  Zionist  organization 
includes  those  Jews  who  declare  themselves  to  be  in  agreement 
with  the  Basel  Program. 

The  wound  which  had  been  inflicted  could  not 
be  healed  by  a  simple  resolution.  The  minority  did 
not  disarm.  Most  of  the  territorialists  had  ab¬ 
stained  from  taking  part  in  the  final  vote,  and  the 
Poale  Zion,  who  were  to  a  large  extent  advanced 
socialists,  marked  their  complete  disapprobation  by 
refusing  to  participate  further  in  the  proceedings 
of  the  Congress.  It  was  these  two  bodies  that 

136 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 

formed  the  nucleus  of  the  first  real  and  effective 
split  in  the  Zionist  organization. 

The  premonitory  signs  of  this  secession  were 
seen  in  1905,  when  the  Zionistic  Territorial  Or¬ 
ganization  in  Berne  first  made  its  appearance.  The 
British  offer  in  East  Africa  and  the  difference  of 
opinion  in  regard  to  its  acceptance  formed  the  oc¬ 
casion  for  its  active  manifestation.  It  gained 
greatly  in  importance  by  the  fact  that  Israel  Zang- 
will  put  himself  at  its  head.  By  the  power  of 
his  pen  and  by  a  devotion  similar  to  that  of  his 
friend  Herzl,  he  has  been  able  to  build  it  up  in  a 
manner  not  thought  possible  by  those  who  witnessed 
its  birth.  The  object  of  this  organization,  or  Ito,11 
as  it  has  come  to  be  called,  is : 

1.  To  procure  a  territory  upon  an  autonomous  basis  for  the  Jews 
who  cannot  or  who  will  not  remain  in  the  lands  in  which  they 
already  live.  2.  To  achieve  this  end,  the  organization  proposes: 
to  unite  all  Jews  who  are  in  agreement  with  this  object;  to  enter 
into  relations  with  governments  and  public  and  private  institu¬ 
tions;  and  to  create  financial  institutions,  labor  bureaus,  and 
other  instruments  that  may  be  found  necessary. 

One  would  wish  to  speak  with  all  due  reserve 
in  criticism  of  a  writer  and  leader  who  has  deserved 
so  well  of  the  Jewish  people  as  Israel  Zangwill. 
Yet  the  public  utterances  and  the  public  acts  of  even 

137 


ZIONISM 


the  greatest  are  legitimate  subjects  for  public 
criticism.  The  mental  evolution  of  Zangwill  in 
regard  to  Zionism  has  been  peculiar.  One  is  led 
to  doubt  whether  he  was  ever  a  real  Zionist  in 
the  full  acceptation  of  the  term.  The  enthusiastic 
selflessness  with  which  he  loved  his  people  and 
their  history  led  him  to  be  a  follower  of  Herzl  upon 
part  of  the  road.  He  had  come  to  the  First  Con¬ 
gress  merely  as  a  spectator,  and  was  drawn  into 
the  strong  current  that  it  produced.12  He  followed 
the  leader’s  development  into  a  Palestinian  Zionist, 
and  remained  so  up  to  the  Sixth  Congress.  His 
brilliant  pen  has  written  many  an  impassioned 
praise  of  Palestine  and  of  its  possibilities  under 
Jewish  leadership.  “  He  that  owns  no  land  is  no 
man,”  he  cited  from  the  Talmud  at  the  head  of  an 
article  full  of  fine  sentiments  and  careful  statistics 
about  Palestine.13  He  was  of  opinion  that  “  George 
Eliot,  the  great  seer,  pierced  into  the  heart  of  the 
question  with  keener  vision  than  any  Jew,”  and  he 
described  aptly  the  attitude  of  many  Zionists  when 
he  wrote,  “  We  have  followed  the  largely  uncon¬ 
scious  evolution  by  which — even  against  his  will — 
Israel’s  feet  have  been  turned  Zionwards  at  the 
very  moment  in  history  it  is  possible  for  him  to  re¬ 
occupy  the  country  for  the  world’s  benefit  and  his 

138 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


own.”  And  he  adds:  “  But  the  dullest  imagina¬ 
tion  must  feel  what  a  world  of  romance  and 
spiritual  hope,  what  a  ferment  of  religious  revival 
and  literary  and  artistic  activity,  must  attend  and 
follow  the  home-coming  of  the  Jew.”  At  the  Fifth 
Congress  he  uttered  a  noteworthy  protest  against 
the  pusillanimous  leaders  of  the  Jewish  Coloniza¬ 
tion  Association  and  the  Alliance  Israelite  Univer- 
selle,  in  the  course  of  which  he  said:”  “  In  the 
year  68,  when  Titus  hovered  round  Jerusalem, 
the  father  of  anti-Zionism,  Johanan  ben  Zakkai, 
escaped  from  the  Holy  City  in  a  coffin,  and  fled 
to  the  Roman  camp.  He  had  persuaded  himself 
Jews  could  live  without  a  country,  by  Torah  alone. 
To-night,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-three  years 
later,  I  stand  here  and  see  the  delegates  from  all 
the  lands  of  the  Exile  who  still  cry,  ‘  If  I  forget 
thee,  O  Jerusalem,  may  my  right  hand  forget  its 
cunning.’  ”  And  he  has  sent  broadcast  into  the 
Jewish  world  such  cries  as,  “  Give  the  country  with¬ 
out  a  people  to  the  people  without  a  country.” 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Territorialist  propa¬ 
ganda,  Zangwill  still  spoke  well  of  Zionism,  hold¬ 
ing  that  one  could  become  an  Itoist  and  remain 
a  Zionist.  Nevertheless  he  was  sharply  attacked  by 
his  former  colleagues;  but  this  attack  does  not 

139 


ZIONISM 


excuse  his  ever-increasing  opposition  to  a  move¬ 
ment  which  he  had  helped  to  expand.  Legitimate 
criticism  on  his  part  degenerated  into  open  antag¬ 
onism.  He  was  the  prime  mover  against  the  Jew¬ 
ish  Colonial  Trust  when  it  attempted  to  carry  out 
a  resolution  of  the  Congress  and  to  change  its 
statutes  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  use  of 
Zionist  moneys  for  any  other  than  strictly  Zionist 
purposes.  Of  course,  Zangwill  hoped  that  at  some 
time  or  other  the  moneys  might  become  available 
for  the  purposes  of  the  Ito,  but  the  place  to  carry 
through  such  a  project  or  to  safeguard  the  future 
was  in  the  Congress  itself  and  not  before  a  court 
of  law.  The  action  was  costly,  and  injurious  to 
the  good  fame  of  all  concerned  in  it.  It  is  a 
subject  of  reproach  to  him  that,  though  in  1900 
and  in  1904  he  publicly  labored  the  idea  that  the 
minority  must  perforce  give  way  to  the  majority,15 
in  1905  he  acted  directly  contrary  to  such  advice, 
and  that,  instead  of  stepping  out  quietly  from  a 
movement  when  he  found  himself  no  longer  in 
sympathy  with  it,  he  chose  to  become  one  of  its 
chief  opponents  and  critics. 

It  would  be  invidious  to  criticise  any  movement 
that  makes  a  serious  attempt  to  solve  some  of  the 
problems  that  confront  the  Jew.  In  the  present 

140 


THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 


state  of  Eastern  European  Jewry,  no  endeavor 
ought  to  be  made  to  block  any  practical  work  that 
is  being  done  to  lighten  its  burden.  It  is  not  with 
what  the  Germans  call  Schadenfreude  that  one 
records  the  repeated  failure  of  the  Ito  to  find 
a  territory  fit  for  Jewish  colonization,  whether  in 
the  Cyrenaica,  in  Canada,  in  Australia,  in  Meso¬ 
potamia,  or  in  Angola.  It  is  with  sincere  regret 
that  the  fact  is  borne  in  upon  us  that  no  land  seems 
available  for  such  a  purpose.  But  from  the  more 
extended  Zionist  point  of  view  Itoism  is  like  the 
play  with  the  principal  character  taken  out:  it  is 
Zionism  minus  Zion.  It  has  undoubtedly  earned 
much  praise  for  its  attempt  to  regulate  emigration 
from  Eastern  Europe  and  deflect  part  of  it  through 
Galveston  to  the  Southern  states  of  North  America. 
It  has  grouped  around  a  distinctively  Jewish 
standard  some  of  the  best  forces  in  English  and 
Continental  Jewry.  But  it  is  just  these  forces  that 
have  led  it  further  and  further  away  from  its 
original  ideals.  It  does  not  insist  with  the  same 
vehemence  upon  the  autonomy  of  the  colonization 
it  wishes  to  effect:  indeed,  some  of  its  most  ardent 
supporters  are  determined  opponents  of  autonomy 
in  any  form  whatsoever.  To  the  outsider,  there¬ 
fore,  it  appears  to  be  falling  back  into  the  old  idea 
io  141 


ZIONISM 


of  helping  Jewish  wants  and  needs  by  benevolence. 
Well  and  scientifically  though  this  benevolence  may 
be  applied,  it  has  yet  emasculated  the  greater  hope 
with  which  Pinsker,  Riilf,  Herzl,  and  others  had 
fired  the  Jewish  world. 

But  entirely  apart  from  such  considerations,  it 
is  pertinent  to  remark  that  the  further  and  system¬ 
atic  dispersion  of  Jews  must  act  unfavorably  on  the 
whole  body,  and  can  only  be  entertained  as  a  last 
resort — faute  de  mieux.  This,  of  course,  is  a  point 
of  view  which  may  well  appeal  to  those  of  us  who 
do  not  live  under  political  and  economic  pressure, 
but  which  we  cannot  press  upon  those  who  do  not 
enjoy  the  same  privileged  position.  In  a  general 
and  somewhat  theoretical  way,  it  may  be  held 
that  the  Zionist  organization  as  such  ought  to  have 
no  official  connection  with  movements  based  upon 
the  principle  of  further  dispersion.  In  this  sense, 
the  whole  discussion  on  emigration  at  the  Tenth 
Congress  was  entirely  out  of  place. 

[Notes,  pp.  225-226] 


142 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

The  death  of  Herzl  robbed  the  young  move¬ 
ment  of  the  great  personality  around  which  it  had 
gathered;  it  took  away  its  foremost  representative 
to  the  outer  world.  No  such  eventuality  had  been 
envisaged  by  Herzl  himself,  though  some  of  his 
more  intimate  friends  had  tried  to  induce  him  to 
look  for  a  successor.  Their  efforts  had  been  abor¬ 
tive,  the  poetic  optimism  of  the  leader  had  calmed 
all  suspicion  in  his  own  mind  in  regard  to  his  phys¬ 
ical  weakness.  To  his  followers,  his  loss  brought 
consternation;  from  his  critics  and  from  opponents 
of  the  cause,  a  flood  of  prophecies  that  the  end  of 
Zionism  was  close  at  hand.  These  prophecies 
might  have  proved  true,  if  Zionism  had  been 
simply  a  one-man’s  theory  and  the  work  of  a  single 
individual.  In  that  case,  however  spectacular  its 
expression  and  however  promising  its  outlook,  it 
would  inevitably  have  crumbled  to  pieces  and  been 
lost  in  the  sands  of  time.  But  Herzl’s  work  was 

143 


ZIONISM 


merely  the  culminating  point  in  a  development  that 
was  the  most  determined  expression  of  Jewish  vital¬ 
ity.  As  he  had  not  called  Zionism  into  existence — 
however  much  he  had  aided  its  growth — his  dis¬ 
appearance  could  not  annihilate  it.  To  fill  his  place 
in  any  adequate  manner,  it  was  clearly  felt,  would 
be  quite  impossible :  he  united  in  his  person  certain 
qualities  that  do  not  often  commingle  in  one  and 
the  same  individual.  Various  devices  have  been 
adopted  to  fill  Herzl’s  place  by  a  commission,  some¬ 
times  of  three,  at  other  times  of  seven.  The  plain 
fact  is  that  Zionism  is  still  awaiting  the  appearance 
of  one  man  who  by  common  consent  is  fitted  to  sit 
in  his  seat. 

In  another  respect  also  Herzl’s  death  produced 
a  change.  The  center  of  Zionist  activity  had  very 
naturally  been  in  the  place  of  his  permanent 
abode.  Vienna  possessed  certain  natural  advan¬ 
tages  even  beyond  this  fortuitous  circumstance.  It 
was  easy  of  access  from  Russia,  the  great  back¬ 
bone  of  the  movement;  it  was  a  sort  of  half-way 
house  to  Constantinople,  the  center  of  Herzl’s 
political  negotiations.  But  it  was  not  a  spot  favor¬ 
able  for  active  Jewish  propaganda.  The  conflict  of 
nationalities  in  Austria  had  had  a  deleterious  effect 
upon  the  Jews.  They  had  been  drawn,  willy-nilly, 

144 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 


into  the  maelstrom  of  inner  Austrian  politics;  in 
one  district  they  had  been  forced  to  take  sides  with 
one  grouping,  in  another,  to  flock  to  the  opposing 
standard.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  the  Jew¬ 
ish  representatives  in  Vienna  had  been  particularly 
hostile  to  Herzl  and  to  the  other  Zionist  leaders, 
and  that  the  atmosphere  was  decidedly  unfriendly. 
Herzl  had  a  “  bad  press  ”  in  his  own  city,  and  with 
his  passing  the  center  of  gravity  was  bound  to  move 
elsewhere. 

There  could  be  little  doubt  to  which  part  of 
Europe  the  move  would  be  made.  For  a  short 
while  London  was  debated,  but  London  was  the 
seat  of  the  Jewish  Colonial  Trust,  and  it  was  a 
wise  forethought  not  to  concentrate  all  the  Zionist 
institutions  in  one  locality.  In  addition,  Jewish 
nationalism  and  the  modern  Zionist  movement  had 
been  born  on  the  Continent.  To  have  given  them 
an  Anglo-Saxon  coloring  might  have  added  still 
another  difficulty  and  another  subject  of  disunion 
to  the  many  that  existed  already.  German  was  still 
the  language  understood,  in  one  form  or  another, 
by  the  largest  number  of  Jews.  Germany  was 
clearly  marked  out  as  the  future  home  of  the  move¬ 
ment.  Not  only  was  Cologne  the  home  of  two 
of  the  leaders  and  closest  friends  of  Herzl.  Ger- 


145 


ZIONISM 


many  had,  by  a  peculiar  development,  earned  a 
fully-written  title  to  the  distinction. 

Nothing  is  perhaps  so  remarkable  as  the  manner 
in  which  this  title  was  acquired.  During  the  early 
years  of  Zionism,  the  strongest  protests  and  pro¬ 
nouncements  had  come  from  this  very  Germany. 
Laymen,  clerics,  and  intellectuals  had  joined  hands 
in  condemnation.  Germany  was  the  cradle  of  the 
Reform  movement,  the  principles  of  which  were 
the  antithesis  of  those  upon  which  Zionism  was 
based.  To  the  Reformers,  Zionism  represented  a 
sort  of  lese  majeste ,  and  some  of  the  leaders  were 
willing  to  go  any  length  to  stamp  it  out.  But  there 
were  many  Russian  and  Roumanian  Jewish  stu¬ 
dents  at  German  universities;  a  number  of  them 
were  nationalists,  who  interpreted  their  nationalism 
in  a  cultural  sense.  They  commenced  to  study 
Jewish  history,  to  get  into  touch  with  the  Jewish 
past,  to  sound  the  soul  of  their  birthright.  Modern 
in  their  way  of  thinking,  they  began  to  infuse  a 
Jewish  spirit  into  their  modernism  and  to  have 
visions  of  a  Jewish  culture  of  the  future;  to  dream 
of  Jewish  art,  of  Jewish  music,  and  the  like. 
Vigorous  in  body  as  they  were  strong  in  mind,  they 
had  founded  their  own  Verbindungen.  Their 
answer  to  the  attempt  to  keep  them  out  of  associa- 

146 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

tion  with  the  highest  advances  of  German  develop¬ 
ment  in  the  arts  and  sciences  was  virile:  it  led 
to  self-communion  and  to  self-concentration. 

This  whole  movement  had  commenced  in  Ger¬ 
man  Austria  at  the  time  of  the  first  extensive  po¬ 
groms  in  Russia,  in  1882,  when  the  Kadimah  was 
founded  at  the  University  of  Vienna.  Its  name  in 
its  double  signification,  “  Onwards-Eastwards,” 
had  been  the  suggestion  of  Perez  Smolenskin.  Its 
text-book  was  Pinsker’s  Auto  emancipation.  At  the 
outset,  its  membership  was  composed  largely  of 
Russian  students;  these  were  joined  by  Galicians 
and  Roumanians.  Very  naturally,  it  was  looked  at 
askance  and  with  some  suspicion  by  Jewish  students 
of  German  Austria.  Such  a  Jewish  assertion  as  it 
represented  was  quite  foreign  to  their  own  nature 
and  to  their  surroundings.  But  Vienna  soon  be¬ 
came  a  hotbed  of  anti-Semitism,  and  the  univer¬ 
sity  its  chief  breeding-place.  The  emphasis  with 
which  the  Jewish  cause  was  defended  by  the 
Kadimah  soon  brought  it  adherents  from  among 
the  German-raised  Jewish  students.  Above  all,  it 
became  a  meeting-ground  for  Jewish  university 
men  coming  from  different  lands,  on  which  the 
Westerners  learned  for  the  first  time  that  their  own 
problems  were  in  reality  similar  to  those  of  the 

147 


ZIONISM 


Jewries  further  East.  That  the  soil  was  amply 
prepared  for  such  student-societies  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  the  Kadimah  became  the  model  for  a 
number  of  similar  organizations,  not  only  at  the 
Vienna  University,  but  also  at  Prague,  Czernowitz, 
Briinn,  Lemberg,  Gratz,  Bielitz,  and  Suczawa. 
Many  of  the  societies  undertook  to  cultivate  the 
Hebrew  language;  some  of  them  had  a  strong 
nationalist  tendency;  and  it  was  the  Kadimah,  as 
we  have  seen,  that  was  the  first  Jewish  group  to 
extend  a  welcoming  hand  to  Doctor  Herzl.1 

It  was  natural  that  the  foundation  of  such 
societies  at  the  German  University  of  Vienna  should 
have  a  repercussion  in  Germany  itself.  At  about 
the  same  time  began  the  attempt  to  exclude  Jewish 
students  from  the  academic  societies  in  German 
universities.  The  action  of  the  Akademische 
Lesehalle  in  Berlin  was  answered  by  the  opening 
of  the  Jiidische  Lesehalle.  The  first  German  Jew¬ 
ish  Students’  Society  was  formed  in  1886  (Viadrina, 
in  Breslau,  now  Thuringia).  Since  then  a  sur¬ 
prisingly  large  number  of  such  societies  have  been 
established,  in  Berlin,  Breslau,  Darmstadt,  Frei¬ 
burg,  Konigsberg,  Marburg,  Munich,  Bonn,  and 
Strassburg.  The  variety  and  the  multiformity  of 
these  societies  are  the  best  warrant  that  they  satisfy 

148 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 


an  inner  and  irrepressible  need.  The  first  were 
founded  frankly  with  the  purpose  of  combating 
anti-Semitism  by  strengthening  the  Jewish  con¬ 
sciousness  of  their  members.  They  are  united  in 
what  is  called  a  Kartell-Konvent,  and  take  no  sides 
in  political  or  religious  questions.  The  Kartell  was 
soon  followed  by  the  Bund  judischer  Korporationen 
(1900),  which  went  one  step  further,  and  turned 
the  rather  negative  program  of  the  Kartell  into 
one  more  positive,  for  the  purpose  of  “  developing 
a  living  Judaism.”  None  of  the  societies  in  the 
above-mentioned  groups  was  distinctly  Zionistic 
or  even  Jewishly  national.  The  first  official  Zion¬ 
istic  students’  society  was  the  Maccabaea,  in 
Breslau  (1901).  It  has  been  followed  by  several 
others,  which  have  been  gathered  into  a  Kartell 
zionistischer  Verbindungen,  founded  in  1906.  To 
these  must  be  added  the  Academic-Zionistic  Society 
Tchioh,  founded  in  Kothen,  In  1903,  which  has, 
from  time  to  time,  instituted  summer  courses  in 
the  history  and  geography  of  Palestine;  the  Freie 
Verbindung  Dahlemia  (Berlin,  1905-1906),  made 
up  of  students  of  pharmacy;  and  the  Bund  judischer 
Akademiker  (1906),  in  Berlin,  Munich,  and  Strass- 
burg,  whose  object  is  to  strengthen  traditional 
Judaism  among  university  students.2  And,  finally, 


ZIONISM 


mention  must  be  made  of  the  Bund  jiidischer 
Jugendvereine,  a  sort  of  by-product  of  the  students’ 
societies.  Though  this  Bund  is  not  distinctly  Zion- 
istic  in  its  program,  most  of  its  members  come  from 
Zionist  circles.  The  organization  is  said  to  contain 
thirteen  thousand  members,  and  is  similar  in  its 
tendencies  to  the  Young  Judaea  in  America.3 

I  have  dwelt  somewhat  upon  these  societies,  be¬ 
cause  they  have  brought  into  the  bonds  of  the 
closest  ideal  friendship  a  number  of  young  men, 
who  have  acted  as  leaven  both  within  the  university 
and  without.  That  there  was  need  of  such  a 
strengthened  dike,  upon  which  the  waves  of  anti- 
Semitism  were  to  beat,  was  all  too  evident.  Many 
of  the  older  dikes  had  not  held;  they  had  given 
way  gradually,  either  through  pressure  from  with¬ 
out  or  through  weakness  from  within.  The  alarm¬ 
ing  number  of  conversions  to  Christianity  that  took 
place  in  Germany  during  the  closing  years  of  the 
nineteenth  and  the  opening  years  of  the  twentieth 
century,  show  plainly  the  need  for  a  deeper  Jewish 
consciousness.  It  will  be  remembered  that  at  the 
time  of  Germany’s  greatest  political  degradation, 
consequent  upon  the  Napoleonic  regime,  the  new 
spirit  that  was  to  bring  freedom  was  born  and  nur¬ 
tured  in  the  universities.  Quite  a  similar  idealism 

150 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 


proceeded  from  among  the  Jewish  students  a  little 
less  than  a  hundred  years  later,  and  prepared  the 
way  for  the  definite  leadership  assumed  by  the  Ger¬ 
man  Zionists  in  1911,  when  the  seat  of  the  Inner 
Actions  Committee  was  fixed  in  Berlin,  and  when 
Professor  Otto  Warburg  was  chosen  by  his  col¬ 
leagues  to  preside  over  the  Committee. 

This  change  in  the  place  of  the  central  governing 
body  denoted  also  a  certain  change  in  policy,  or, 
to  be  more  just,  a  greater  accentuation  of  one  part 
of  Zionist  activity.  The  old  rivalry  between  the 
two  lines  along  which  the  movement  had  been  con¬ 
ducted  had  become  accentuated  as  years  went  by. 
It  had  become  somewhat  stereotyped  by  the  desig¬ 
nation  of  the  one  as  “  political  ”  Zionism  and  of  the 
other  as  “  Palestinian  ”  Zionism.  The  designations 
were  false,  and  therefore  the  stereotyping  was  a 
misfortune.  At  best,  no  essential  antagonism 
existed  between  the  two  policies,  not  even  any  appre¬ 
ciable  gulf  between  one  and  the  other.  There  were, 
of  course,  extremists  on  both  sides,  but  the  question 
was  largely  one  of  proportion  only.  The  arch- 
“  politicals  ”  held  fast  to  the  formulae  which  Herzl 
had  laid  down  at  the  beginning  of  his  Zionist 
career;  they  still  believed  that  it  was  wrong  and 
unwise  to  forward  colonization  before  full  political 

151 


ZIONISM 


guarantees  had  been  secured;  they  looked  askance 
at  what  was  called  “  petty  colonization  ”  (Klein- 
Kolonisation)  and  at  any  extensive  application  of 
the  funds  of  the  Jewish  Colonial  Trust  to  the 
purchase  of  land  in  Palestine.  They  conceived 
Zionism  along  large  lines,  and  counseled  a  waiting 
policy  until  the  time  should  come  when  really  de¬ 
cisive  and  thoroughgoing  action  would  be  possible 
— unconsciously  nearing,  though  upon  quite  differ¬ 
ent  grounds,  the  position  held  by  the  ultra-Ortho- 
dox  wing  of  the  Synagogue.  But  to  describe  them  as 
anti-Palestinians  would  be  to  mistake  a  method  of 
procedure  for  a  matter  of  principle.  Again,  there 
were  also  extreme  Palestinians,  the  so-called 
Ziyyone  Zionists.  These  were  impatient  of  de¬ 
lay  in  furthering  what  was  called  u  practical  work  ” 
in  Palestine,  and  some  even  went  so  far  as  to  de¬ 
mand  the  transference  of  the  whole  movement,  bag 
and  baggage,  to  the  Promised  Land.4  It  is  true 
that  such  showed  a  want  of  political  perspicacity, 
but  most  of  their  leaders  had  in  no  way  broken  with 
the  political  side  of  Zionism.  They  simply  be¬ 
lieved  that  this  feature  was  of  secondary  impor¬ 
tance,  one  which,  in  some  unknown  way,  would 
take  care  of  itself. 

It  was  these  extreme  Palestinians  who  were,  in 

152 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

a  measure,  to  carry  the  day.  Originally,  they  were 
a  group  composed  mostly  of  Russians,  at  whose 
head  was  M.  Ussischkin.  They  were  admirably 
organized,  and  they  were  among  the  most  deter¬ 
mined  of  those  who  had  opposed  the  East  Africa 
proposition.  Ussischkin  had  been  the  moving  spirit 
at  the  all-Russian  Zionist  Congress  at  Minsk,  Sep¬ 
tember,  1902,  at  which  the  proposition  was  made 
to  invest  in  Palestine  land  the  whole  of  the  sums 
collected  for  the  National  Fund.  In  the  year  1903 
he  had  convened  a  Zionist  Congress  in  Palestine 
itself,  as  related  above,  and  during  the  last  years 
of  Herzl’s  life  he  had  been  his  opponent,  antagoniz¬ 
ing  him  secretly  and  openly.  After  Herzl’s  death, 
the  Russian  opposition  grew  in  power;  their  repre¬ 
sentatives  at  the  Congress  were  assisted  by  the  Ger¬ 
man  contingent,  much  of  whose  interest  lay  more 
exclusively  in  Jewish  developments  in  Palestine  than 
in  the  larger  questions  at  issue.  During  the  period 
1904-19 1 1,  when  the  Zionist  organization  was 
under  the  leadership  of  David  Wolffsohn,  who  had 
taken  the  ungracious  task  upon  his  shoulders  of 
heading  the  movement  in  the  most  critical  period  in 
its  development,  they  had  made  rapid  strides. 
Wolffsohn’s  efforts  were  largely  expended — and 
necessarily  so — in  healing  the  many  breaches  made 

153 


ZIONISM 


in  its  walls.  At  the  Congress  of  19 11  the  combina¬ 
tion  of  Russians  and  Germans  won  its  final  victory, 
and  passed  from  the  Opposition  to  the  Government 
benches.  Its  policy  is  expressed  in  the  words  used 
by  Professor  Warburg  at  the  Seventh  Congress: 
“  Their  right  to  the  land  by  reason  of  their  having 
possessed  it  two  thousand  years  ago  is  not  a  suffi¬ 
cient  claim ;  they  must  create  a  modern  title,  which 
would  consist  in  the  fact  that  Palestine  depended 
economically  upon  the  Jews,  owing  its  progress  to 
Jewish  initiative  and  resources.”  5  It  is  Professor 
Warburg  who  has  given  practical  expression  to  this 
policy  in  his  character  as  founder  and  chairman  of 
the  Palestine  Commission.  Under  his  auspices, 
the  Commission  has  assisted  various  Palestinian  en¬ 
terprises,  and  has  encouraged  the  formation  of 
a  number  of  societies  that  collect  information 
regarding  the  agricultural  and  commercial  possi¬ 
bilities  of  the  country.6  It  is  practically  the  Pales¬ 
tine  Commission  which  now  guides  the  Zionist 
movement. 

Though  it  has  been  felt  by  many  Zionists  that 
the  work  projected  by  the  Commission — and  now, 
presumably,  to  be  followed  by  the  organization — 
is  of  too  varied  a  character,  and  sometimes  be¬ 
yond  the  immediate  means,  the  work  of  the  Pales- 

154 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

tine  Commission  has  always  commanded  interest. 
It  provided  opportunity  for  willing  hands,  and 
material,  other  than  pure  theorems,  with  which 
to  fix  on  Palestine  the  interest  of  the  ever-widening 
Diaspora.  It  represented  action,  and  the  ordinary 
man  looks  upon  action,  of  whatever  kind  it  may 
be,  as  the  final  warrant  of  success.  In  addition,  it 
made  it  possible  to  rally  to  its  assistance  other  ele¬ 
ments  in  Jewish  life  than  merely  affiliated  Zionists: 
some  whose  attitude  was  one  of  sympathetic  de¬ 
tachment,  others  who  refused  to  follow  the  de¬ 
cadent  lead  of  Jewish  cravens.  For  the  claim  of 
Palestine  has  always  found  more  or  less  of  an 
echo  in  the  heart  of  the  Jew,  however  much  he 
might  be  estranged  from  the  current  life  of  his 
people.  Historical,  sentimental,  and  benevolent  in¬ 
stincts  joined  hands  to  produce  this  result.  The 
Technical  School  at  Haifa,  the  Hebrew  Gymna¬ 
sium  at  Jaffa,  the  Jewish  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station  at  Athlit,  and  the  Bezalel  School  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  though  all  the  outcome  of  Zionist  impulse, 
are  cases  in  point.  These  would  hardly  have  been 
possible  without  the  substantial  aid  of  many  who 
would  object  to  being  classed  in  any  of  the  cat¬ 
egories  into  which  Zionists  may  be  divided.  The 

great  danger,  however,  lies  in  the  possible  one-sided 

155 


ZIONISM 


insistence  on  this  work  as  the  quintessence  of  Zion¬ 
ism.  Unless  it  is  informed  with  the  ideal  repre¬ 
sented  by  the  so-called  “  politicals,”  it  is,  indeed,  in 
danger  of  falling  back  into  the  rut  of  Chovevi 
Zionism  and  of  running  into  the  sands  of  mere 
benevolence  a  movement  that  at  one  time  quivered 
with  national  sentiment.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  Opposition  to  keep  this  larger  view  alive. 

The  new  direction  given  to  the  Zionist  movement 
has  been  strangely  favored  by  historic  events  in 
Turkey  itself.  The  regranting  of  the  Constitution, 
forced  upon  the  late  Sultan  Abdul  Hamid  in  1908, 
and  confirmed  after  the  counter-revolution  in  1909, 
was  bound  to  have  its  effect  in  Palestine  and  react 
upon  the  Zionist  movement.  During  the  absolutist 
regime  of  the  former  Sultan,  it  was  possible  for 
Herzl  to  treat  with  the  Sultan  alone.  Nearly  all 
the  power  in  the  state  had  been  concentrated  grad¬ 
ually  in  the  Palace,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Porte  and 
to  the  derision  of  so-called  responsible  ministers. 
The  Constitution  took  this  power  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  Sultan,  and  gave  it  back  to  the  people,  or 
at  least  to  their  parliamentary  representatives.  It 
is  quite  evident  that  a  procedure  that  promised 
success  under  the  old  order,  would  require  modifica¬ 
tion  under  the  new.  Different  forces  had  to  be  con- 


156 


1 


dicing:  p.  156 


JEWISH  NATIONAL  FUND 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

sidered,  and  attention  had  to  be  given  to  the  power 
of  public  opinion. 

It  has  been  repeated  with  insistence  that  with  the 
change  of  Government  at  Constantinople  Charter- 
ism  was  dead,  and  as  Charterism  was  set  up  as  the 
equivalent  of  Zionism,  the  inference  was  drawn 
that  Zionism  was  dead.  But  Charterism  was 
merely  a  method,  and  was  in  no  way  of  the  essence 
of  the  movement.  Charterism  was  a  possibility 
under  a  system  that  was  personal  in  character, 
when,  for  personal,  if  not  for  state,  reasons,  such 
an  arrangement  might  seem  advantageous  to  some 
ulterior  plan  of  the  ruler.  But  new  forces  were  at 
work  now,  and  these  forces  demanded  recognition. 
The  emotion  that  accompanied  the  new  order  of 
things  had  produced  a  wave  of  patriotism  among 
Turkish  subjects  unknown  hitherto,  which  looked 
with  disfavor  upon  any  special  groupings  accord¬ 
ing  to  nationalities  and  races.  The  attempt  was 
to  be  made  to  “  Ottomanize  ”  everything.  The 
definite  incorporation  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina 
into  the  Austro-Hungarian  Empire  (1908),  the 
proclamation  of  the  independence  of  Bulgaria, 
and  the  attempt  of  the  Cretans  to  secure  their 
junction  to  the  Hellenic  kingdom  served  only  to  fan 
the  flame.  It  was  obviously  not  the  moment  to  push 
11  157 


ZIONISM 


whatever  claims  the  Jews  might  have  to  urge  in 
Palestine,  but  simply  to  work  there  for  the  upbuild¬ 
ing  of  the  country  and  for  the  economic  and  cultural 
strengthening  of  the  Jewish  position  in  the  land. 
In  addition,  it  was  necessary  to  clarify  the  situation 
and  enlighten  the  leaders  of  the  Committee  of 
Union  and  Progress  upon  the  real  ends  and  aims 
of  Zionism. 

Unfortunately,  this  enlightening  process  has  not 
been  carried  very  far,  despite  the  fact  that  in  1907 
a  daughter-institution  of  the  Jewish  Colonial  Trust 
had  been  established  at  Constantinople  itself,  the 
Anglo-Levantine  Company,  for  the  express  purpose 
of  facilitating  such  enlightenment.  Certain  currents 
hostile  to  the  Zionists  and  to  the  Jewish  colonists 
in  Palestine  had  commenced  to  make  their  appear¬ 
ance,  with  the  evident  intention  to  prejudice  the 
minds  of  responsible  statesmen  in  the  capital.  Some 
of  the  German  colonists  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jaffa  had  not  seen  with  a  welcoming  eye  the  success 
of  their  Jewish  fellow-colonists  and  the  forward 
movement  of  the  Jews  in  Jaffa  and  Haifa.  A 
series  of  letters  published  in  the  Ottomanischer 
Lloyd  at  Constantinople 7  gave  tongue  to  these 
complaints,  and  the  voice  was  heard  in  the  high 
places.  In  addition,  the  Arabs  were  becoming,  or 

158 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

were  said  to  be  becoming,  restless.  Certain  Syrian 
agitators  thought  to  push  their  claims  by  means  of 
an  anti-Jewish  campaign  in  a  penny-sheet  pub¬ 
lished  at  Haifa.  More  unfortunately  still,  a  cer¬ 
tain  support  was  given  to  this  misconstruction  by 
Jewish  bodies  themselves.  In  characteristic  fashion, 
the  Jews  in  Constantinople  and  in  other  parts  of 
Turkey  in  Europe  were  for  the  most  part  ultra- 
Turkish  in  their  sympathies,  and,  in  a  situation  in 
which  every  nationality— Greek,  Bulgarian,  Kutzo- 
Vlach,  Albanian,  Servian,  and  Arab — was  asserting 
its  righteous  (and  sometimes  unrighteous)  claims, 
the  Jews  alone  remained  silent.  They  had  bound 
themselves  hand  and  foot  to  the  Committee  of 
Union  and  Progress.  Nor  can  certain  elements 
in  West  European  Jewry  be  absolved  from  all 
blame  for  actions  which  can  hardly  be  the  result  of 
pure  ignorance.  In  1910  a  deputation  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Union  and  Progress  had  come  to  Paris. 
It  was  quite  natural  that  the  leaders  of  the  Alliance 
Israelite  should  seek  to  get  into  closest  touch  with 
the  Turkish  authorities,  in  view  of  the  many  edu¬ 
cational  institutions  supported  by  them  in  the 
Ottoman  Empire.  But  they  seem  to  have  insin¬ 
uated  into  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  deputa¬ 
tion  the  idea  that  Zionism  was  incompatible  with 

159 


ZIONISM 


Ottomanism — an  idea  that  was  actively  propagated 
through  Alliance  channels  in  Turkey  itself.9  In 
this  manner,  an  atmosphere  of  suspicion  was 
created,  in  which  all  sorts  of  rumors  had  a  chance 
to  take  root  and  flourish.  This  was  fully  revealed 
in  the  Turkish  Parliament,  during  the  autumn  of 
1910  and  the  spring  of  19 11,  when  the  conduct  of 
Djavid  Bey,  the  former  Minister  of  Finance,  was 
under  review. 

Djavid  Bey  is  by  birth  a  Donmeh,  a  descendant 
of  those  followers  of  Sabbatai  Zebi  who  saved 
themselves  by  conforming  outwardly  to  Moham¬ 
medan  rites;  in  other  words,  an  Islamic  Marano. 
In  order  to  discredit  him  completely,  European 
methods  had  been  imported  into  Turkey,  and  the 
Jewish  financial  bogy  evoked,  of  which  he  was  said 
to  be  the  tool.  This  bubble  agitation  succeeded  in 
a  measure,  and  with  fatuous  credulity  was  pub¬ 
lished  urbi  et  orbi  by  the  correspondent  of  the 
London  Times  at  Vienna.10  The  severe  attack 
leveled  at  the  Hakki  ministry  issued  often  in  the 
charge  of  u  Judaizing,”  savoring  strongly  of 
Inquisition  days  and  Inquisition  methods.  The 
words  “  Zionism  ”  and  “  Zionist  ”  were  used  freely 
in  this  harrying  process,  and,  in  defending  them- 

160 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

selves  against  any  such  suspicion,  both  Djavid  Bey 
and  Hakki  Pasha  displayed  such  ignorance  of  the 
first  principles  of  the  movement  as  to  raise  the  suspi¬ 
cion  that  they  had  heard  of  it  then  and  there  for  the 
first  time.  The  charges  were  in  a  nutshell  that 
Zionism  was  a  world-wide  Jewish  intrigue  against 
Ottoman  statehood,  behind  which  some  great  Jew¬ 
ish  banking-houses  of  international  fame  were  seek¬ 
ing  to  gain  their  own  ends.  Such  muddle-headed¬ 
ness  might  be  excusable  among  the  penny-a-liners 
of  the  daily  press,  but  it  was  quite  inexcusable  at 
the  bar  of  a  nation  s  assembly.  The  one  or  two 
Jewish  deputies  who  intervened  achieved  the  won¬ 
derful  performance  of  bemusing  the  confusion  still 
further.11 

Now,  upon  no  point  had  so  much  insistence  been 
put  by  Zionist  leaders  as  upon  the  relation  of  the 
movement  to  Ottoman  sovereignty.  In  the  pre- 
Herzlian  period,  Pinsker 12  had  insisted  upon  a 
proper  and  faithful  understanding  with  Constanti¬ 
nople.  Ahad  ha-Am  had  followed  him  in  this.13 
At  the  very  first  Congress,  in  1897,  Herzl  had  set 
the  seal  upon  an  open  and  loyal  intercourse  with 
the  Turkish  authorities,  and  his  disapprobation  of 
any  procedure  that  might  awaken  distrust  led  him 

161 


ZIONISM 


to  object  to  Palestine-colonization  as  it  had  been 
carried  on  previously.  His  words  were : 14 

The  confidence  of  the  state  which  is  necessary  for  a  settlement 
of  large  masses  of  Jews  can  only  be  gained  by  publicity  and  by 
loyal  action.  .  .  .  The  immigration  of  the  Jews  is  an  influx  in 
force  of  an  unexpected  wealth  for  this  poor  country,  yes,  even 
for  the  whole  Ottoman  Empire.  His  Majesty,  the  Sultan,  has  had 
the  best  of  experiences  of  his  Jewish  subjects,  just  as  he  has 
always  been  towards  them  a  kind  sovereign. 

At  the  Third  Congress,  Herzl  again  emphasized 
the  point  in  his  opening  address : 15 

Naturally  we  lay  the  strongest  stress  on  giving  proof  of  this 
loyalty,  above  all  to  the  Turkish  Government.  No  step  will  be 
taken  by  us  which  even  in  a  remote  degree  could  arouse  the 
justifiable  mistrust  of  the  sovereign  power  of  Palestine.  We  will 
and  can  confer  the  greatest  advantages  on  the  Ottoman  Empire; 
we  may  act  altogether  openly. 

Again,  at  the  Seventh  Congress,  Nordau  reiter¬ 
ated,  and  in  no  uncertain  words,  the  attitude  of  the 
Zionist  leaders ; 16 

In  these  circumstances,  the  Turkish  Government  might  realize 
that  it  would  be  of  great  value  to  possess,  in  Palestine  and  Syria, 
a  numerous,  strong,  and  well-organized  population,  which,  with 
due  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  indigenous  peoples,  would  tolerate 
no  attacks  on  the  authority  of  the  Sultan,  but  on  the  contrary 
would  repel  them  with  all  its  power.  And  Europe  would  prob¬ 
ably  regard  it  as  a  service  if  the  Jewish  people,  by  its  peaceful 

162 


THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

and  energetic  occupation  of  Palestine,  prevents  violent  changes 
in  the  government  of  the  country,  and  renders  superfluous  an 
intervention  of  the  Powers,  the  dangers  of  which  are  only  too 
well-known  in  diplomatic  circles. 

At  the  Eighth  Congress,  David  Wolffsohn  again 
took  up  the  thread,  and,  addressing  the  Porte 
through  the  Congress,  spoke  of  the  “  loyalty  of  our 
endeavors  and  the  civilizing  and  peaceful  character 
of  our  movement  which  had  been  laid  to  the  heart 
of  the  Porte:  we  have  continually  represented  to 
the  Turkish  Government  the  loyalty  of  our  aspira¬ 
tions,  the  civilizing  and  peaceful  significance  of  our 
undertakings,  and  we  hope  that  the  Sublime  Porte, 
which  entertains  great  sympathy  for  our  people, 
will  find  the  correct  measure  for  the  estimate  of  our 
intentions.”  17 

Such  citations  could  easily  be  multiplied.  They 
all  show  plainly  that  the  Zionists  conceived  their 
mission  as  in  no  way  hostile  to  Ottoman  statehood. 
Considering  the  downward  pace  at  which  things 
were  going  during  the  reign  of  Abdul  Hamid,  and 
the  probable  break-up  of  the  Empire  that  this  fore¬ 
shadowed,  it  was  natural  that  the  largest  possible 
measure  of  autonomy  figured  in  the  Zionist  pro¬ 
gram  for  the  future  Jewish  home.  Modern  con¬ 
stitutionalism  in  Turkey  has  diminished  the  neces- 

163 


ZIONISM 


sity  of  insistence  upon  the  political  side  of  this 
autonomy.  It  is  true  that  the  bloom  of  the  new 
life  there  has  been  somewhat  hectic  in  its  flush. 
It  demanded  too  much.  It  attempted  to  sink  all 
differences  of  race  and  nationality  in  the  all-embra¬ 
cing  arms  of  Ottomanism.  Such  a  policy  is  impos¬ 
sible  of  success  in  Turkey.  Nay,  it  is  directly 
opposed  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  Moham¬ 
medan  political  doctrines,  which  distinctly  permit 
the  existence  of  separate  entities,  bound  together 
by  a  common  allegiance  to  the  state  power.  The 
only  hope  for  the  future  prosperity  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire  lies  in  a  wise  and  wide  decentralization,  in 
which  the  various  races,  nationalities,  and  religions 
shall  be  able  to  develop  their  innate  powers,  and 
along  their  own  peculiar  lines.  The  second  and 
sober  thought  of  Turkish  statesmen  is  veering 
gradually  to  this  policy — a  policy  put  forward  with 
a  strong  plea  by  Prince  Sabaheddin  at  the  Congress 
of  the  opposition  parties  held  in  Paris  in  1907,  and 
to  advance  which  the  party  of  the  “  Entente  ”  has 
been  formed.  As  a  member  of  such  a  reorganized 
state,  a  Jewish  Palestine  will  take  its  due  and  proper 
place. 

J^Notes,  pp.  226-227] 


164 


CHAPTER  VII 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 

It  is  natural  that  a  movement  which  made  its 
appeal  to  Jews  in  every  land,  and  was  consciously 
meant  to  be  “  all-Jewish  ”  in  its  application,  should 
receive  different  and  varying  interpretations.  Per¬ 
haps  the  very  fact  that  it  has  been  interpreted 
variously  might  be  cited  in  support  of  the  conten¬ 
tion  that  it  is  the  very  heart  of  the  Jewish  question 
as  felt  by  the  Jews  themselves.  With  some  of  these 
interpretations  we  are  already  acquainted,  especially 
with  the  two  most  important  ones :  that  put  forward 
by  Herzl  and  his  immediate  followers,  and  termed 
“  political,”  and  that  represented  by  the  so-called 
Palestinians.  Some  phases  in  the  development  of 
Zionism  were  only  momentary  in  their  appearance, 
and  due  either  to  special  circumstances  or  to  per¬ 
sonal  considerations.  A  few  phases,  however,  are 
of  larger  import  and  deserve  special  mention. 

The  first  of  these  phases  is  that  represented  by 
the  Poale  Zion.  As  their  name  signifies,  they  repre¬ 
sent  the  Labor  Party  within  the  Zionist  organiza- 

165 


ZIONISM 


tion.  The  untoward  condition  in  which  Jewish 
laborers  live,  not  only  in  the  modern  Ghettos  of 
Eastern  Europe,  but  also  in  the  large  cities  of 
Western  Europe  and  America,  has  made  their  at¬ 
tachment  to  the  Zionist  cause  somewhat  natural. 
They  have  suffered  along  with  others  in  the  same 
social  class  under  the  rapid  and  haphazard  develop¬ 
ment  of  our  great  modern  industrial  centers.  The 
fact  of  their  being  Jews  has,  however,  added  to  their 
difficulties  in  Eastern  Europe,  and,  when  they  em¬ 
igrated,  the  fact  that  they  are  strangers  in  the  land 
of  their  adoption.  The  legislation  of  the  Middle 
Ages  had  forced  them  into  a  few  and  definite  occu¬ 
pations,  and,  as  land-tenure  by  Jews  was  prohibited, 
agricultural  employment  was  entirely  impossible. 
An  unhealthy  one-sidedness  was  thus  developed,  of 
which  they  themselves  were  only  too  well  aware. 
At  first,  there  was  every  indication  that  they  would 
join  hands  with  the  Socialists,  and  find  rest  and 
respite  in  their  camp.  For  their  attachment  to  the 
Jewish  cause,  either  religious  or  national,  was  not 
known  to  be  strong.  Socialism  has  always  been 
more  or  less  of  a  revolt  against  the  domination  of 
religious  influences,  such  influences  having  been 
represented  as  one  of  the  forces  of  capitalism.  Nor 
have  the  Socialists  anywhere  been  strong  nation- 

166 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 

alists,  despite  the  facts  that  individual  Socialists 
have  expressed  strong  nationalist  sentiments,  and 
the  German  Socialists  have  of  late  years  refused  to 
follow  their  French  colleagues  in  the  endeavor  to 
break  down  the  barriers  that  separate  one  nation 
from  another.  The  Socialism  of  Nlarx,  however, 
is  thoroughly  international  in  spirit;  the  celebrated 
manifesto  of  Marx  and  Engels  (1848)  says  ex¬ 
pressly  that  the  workman  has  no  fatherland.2  The 
Jewish  Socialist  and  labor  parties  should  have  had 
no  reason  to  look  beyond  the  party  in  which  their 
fellow-workmen  were  to  be  found. 

That  this  has  not  been  so,  is  only  one  of  the 
many  curious  phenomena  that  accompany  and 
signalize  the  history  of  the  Jews.  The  chief 
founder  of  modern  Socialism,  Karl  Marx,  is  a 
Jew.  Singer  and  Bernstein,  to  name  only  two  of 
the  more  prominent  leaders,  are  also  Jews.  But 
the  Socialists  were  as  unwilling  as  others  to  take 
up  the  cause  of  their  persecuted  fellow-proletarians. 
Shortly  after  the  Kishineff  disaster,  in  1905,  a 
monster-meeting  of  protest  was  held  in  Hyde  Park, 
London.  The  Socialists,  however,  refused  to  join 
in  the  demonstration,3  just  as  the  peasants  and 
workingmen  in  Russia  have  declined  to  make 
common  cause  with  their  Jewish  fellow-citizens.4 

167 


ZIONISM 


In  Germany  and  Austria,  the  Christian-Socialist 
Party,  evidently  intended  to  turn  Socialists  away 
from  their  international  and  anti-religious  dreams, 
made  a  juncture  with  Jewish  laborers  impossible. 
In  this  manner,  the  Jewish  workingman  was  forced 
to  throw  in  his  lot  with  his  own  brethren.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  Moses  Hess,  a  staunch 
worker  in  the  Socialist  cause,  was  a  prophet  of 
modern  Zionism. 

The  beginnings  of  the  Poale  Zion  group  go 
back  to  the  so-called  Democratic  Fraction,  which 
was  formed  at  a  time  shortly  preceding  the  Fifth 
Congress.  Its  members  were  in  a  certain  sense 
followers  of  Ahad  ha-Am,  but  they  laid  more 
stress  than  he  upon  the  proper  and  successful  devel¬ 
opment  of  the  Palestinian  center  of  which  he  wrote, 
more  particularly  in  the  direction  of  the  broadest 
democracy.  The  grouping  was  short-lived,  though 
represented  at  the  all-Russian  Zionist  Congress  held 
at  Minsk  in  1902.  After  the  Fifth  Congress,  it 
sank  its  identity  in  the  party  of  the  Poale  Zion. 
This  latter  had  its  origin  in  Russia,  in  1901,  whence 
it  spread  Into  Austria,  America,  and  Palestine.  In 
1909,  the  various  territorial  societies  formed 
themselves  into  an  international  combination,  in 
which  the  attempt  was  made  to  square  Socialism 

168 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 

with  Zionism.  As  Zionists  they  take  sides  neither 
with  the  “  politicals  ”  nor  with  the  “  practicals,”  but 
lay  stress  upon  what  they  call  the  social-economic 
side  of  the  work  in  Palestine.  They  start  from  the 
principle  that  a  people,  whether  in  the  majority  or 
in  the  minority,  can  make  its  influence  felt  per¬ 
manently  only  when  it  is  attached  to  the  ground  on 
which  it  lives,  and  actually  tills  this  ground.  They 
believe  that  the  great  evil  from  which  the  Jews  have 
suffered  in  the  Diaspora  has  been  this  estrangement 
from  the  land,  not  simply  estrangement  from  land- 
ownership.  The  problem  the  Zionists  have  to  solve 
in  the  first  instance  is  therefore  how  to  form  a 
Jewish  peasant  population,  for  they  hold  that  all 
the  attempts  at  colonization  made  in  Palestine  are 
vitiated  at  the  root  by  the  fact  that  the  old  system 
of  land-ownership  and  landlordism  has  been  pre¬ 
served.  The  Jews  have  become  possessors  of  cer¬ 
tain  lands,  but  the  real  tillers  of  the  soil  are  the 
Arabs,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Germans  in  certain 
Slavic  portions  of  Austria.5  The  Poale  Zion  are 
thus  followers  of  Franz  Oppenheimer,  in  whose 
theories  regarding  Siedlungsgenossenschaften  (co¬ 
operative  settlements)  6  they  see  a  possible  reali¬ 
zation  of  their  purpose,  and  they  were  among 
the  first  to  suggest  that  such  a  settlement  should  be 

169 


ZIONISM 


undertaken  by  the  Zionist  body.7  That  their  in¬ 
fluence  in  the  Zionist  Congress  must  be  consider¬ 
able,  can  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  at  the  Ninth 
Congress  their  theories  were  officially  accepted  as 
worthy  of  a  trial.5  A  special  fund  has  been 
gathered  with  which  this  trial  is  to  be  made,  on  land 
belonging  to  the  National  Fund.9  Many  of  the 
demands  made  in  the  program  of  the  Democratic 
Fraction  have  likewise  been  accepted  by  official 
Zionism. 

The  formation  of  the  Poale  Zion  and  their  recog¬ 
nition  by  the  Congress  as  a  special  federation  was 
a  novelty  in  the  way  of  organization.  The  Zionist 
body  had  been  built  up  on  the  basis  of  groupings 
according  to  territorial  aggregations.  The  differ¬ 
ences  of  opinion  between  the  so-called  “  politicals  ” 
and  practicals  had  not  gone  the  length  of  segre¬ 
gating  either  the  one  or  the  other  into  separate 
formations,  nor  had  special  economic  needs  and 
economic  theories  entered  as  contributing  factors. 
With  the  Poale  Zion  the  case  was  different.  The 
woof  was  here  cut  into  by  the  web,  for  the  Poale 
Zion  were  not  confined  to  any  territory.  They 
were  to  be  found  in  all  large  Jewish  centers,  and 
the  special  needs  of  a  special  class  found  expression 
in  the  Zionist  position  they  occupied.  But,  as 

170 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 

originally  conceived,  the  Zionist  organization  had 
made  no  provision  for  such  groupings.  In  this 
respect  the  Congress  has  had  to  grow  through  an 
evolution  which  none  of  the  great  Parliaments  of 
the  world  has  been  spared.  Great  Britain  is  a 
conspicuous  example.  Up  to  the  year  1886,  the 
two  great  parties,  Conservatives  and  Liberals, 
faced  each  other  alternately  on  one  side  of  the  mace 
and  the  other.  However  much  economic  ques¬ 
tions  might  divide  the  country,  the  lines  of  economic 
cleavage  ran  parallel  with  those  of  political  separa¬ 
tion.  The  Liberals,  as  a  body,  were  free-traders; 
the  Conservatives,  protectionists.  But  with  the  ad¬ 
vent  of  the  Irish  Party  and  of  the  Laborites,  this 
dual  hegemony  lost  its  real  being,  and  has  been 
giving  way  gradually  to  the  Continental  system,  in 
which  the  economic  interests  of  the  various  parties 
condition  the  political  complexion  of  Parliament. 

The  system  has  its  drawbacks,  but  its  coming 
was  inevitable.  In  the  case  of  the  Zionist  Congress, 
its  inadequacy  is  only  too  evident,  and  the  danger 
only  too  actual.  Were  such  a  Congress  being 
held  in  a  Jewish  land,  the  various  divisions  would 
rest  upon  a  basis  of  fact;  they  would  coincide  with 
actual  everyday  interests.  With  the  Zionists,  at 
the  beginning  of  their  work  in  Palestine,  they 

171 


ZIONISM 


rested  upon  theory,  i.  e.,  upon  ideal  interests.  There 
was  therefore  little  to  prevent  other  theories  from 
finding  expression  in  other  groupings,  and  the 
whole  Congress  from  developing — or  degenerating 
* — into  a  meeting  for  theoretical  debates,  with  a 
natural  repercussion  in  the  organization  itself.  If 
we  bear  this  in  mind,  we  shall  understand  the  many 
debates  on  “  organization  ”  that  have  taken  place, 
from  the  Second  Congress  onward.  The  formation 
of  such  groups  was  strongly  opposed  by  Doctor 
Herzl  and  the  “  politicals,”  but  it  was  impossible 
to  stave  them  off,  and  at  the  Tenth  Congress  the 
wording  of  the  statutes  was  so  changed  as  to  admit 
them  into  full  fellowship. 

Another  attempt  to  cross  the  Zionist  movement 
by  other  theories  of  an  economic  character  was 
made  by  the  Bund,  a  name  given  to  the  General 
Jewish  Workingmen’s  Union  of  Russia  and  Poland. 
The  formation  and  the  development  of  this  group 
is  of  more  than  passing  interest,  because  it  illus¬ 
trates  forcibly  the  inevitable  trend  of  any  concerted 
Jewish  action.  Just  as  the  Poale  Zion  found  that 
the  question  they  were  called  upon  to  solve  re¬ 
quired  special  treatment  because  of  the  fact  that  it 
dealt  with  Jews,  so  the  Bund  was  compelled  to  go 
a  certain  distance  on  the  road  to  Jewish  nationalism. 

172 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 

At  first,  the  Jewish  intellectuals  in  Russia  wished 
to  work  hand  in  hand  with  the  other  leaders  that 
had  put  themselves  at  the  head  of  the  proletarian 
movement.  But  they  soon  saw  that,  as  they  would 
have  to  labor  exclusively  in  the  Pale  and  with  a  com¬ 
pact  body  that  had  other  traditions  and  other 
aspirations  than  their  Russian  fellow-workmen, 
other  means  and  methods  were  necessary.  The 
Bund  was  formed  in  1897.  Shortly  after  this, 
the  Russian  Workingmen’s  Democratic  Party  was 
founded.  Now,  the  leaders  of  the  Bund  had  little 
sympathy  with  the  religious  or  national  ideals  of  the 
Jewish  people.  Religion  they  considered  to  be 
merely  one  of  the  means  by  which  workingmen  were 
held  in  subjection  to  the  bourgeois  class,  and  their 
national  ideal  was  more  Russian  than  Jewish.  It 
was  therefore  quick  to  throw  in  its  lot  with  the 
newly-formed  Democratic  Party,  and  it  endeavored 
to  find  salvation  in  obliterating  any  lines  of  demar¬ 
cation  that  might  separate  it  from  the  general  move¬ 
ment. 

The  Bund,  however,  had  not  reckoned  fully  with 
the  host  whose  hospitality  it  proposed  to  enjoy. 
The  Democratic  Party  demanded  complete  as¬ 
similation.  For  this  the  Bundists  were  not  yet 
ready.  Perhaps  a  spark  of  the  old  fire  was  still 

173 


12 


ZIONISM 


alive  among  them.  Perhaps  also  the  particularism 
of  their  fellow-proletarians  of  other  nationalities 
shamed  them  out  of  complete  acquiescence  in  such 
demands.  For  all  the  other  oppressed  nationalities 
had  a  claim  upon  the  recognition  of  their  national 
character  as  part  of  their  platforms.  The  Jewish 
workmen  were  wooed  first  by  one  of  the  national 
groupings  and  then  by  another,  in  much  the 
same  fashion  as  the  Jewish  vote  has  been  caressed 
in  Austria  and  Hungary.  The  bride  declared  for 
none  of  them,  but  proceeded  to  set  up  house  for 
herself  in  single  blessedness.  At  its  fourth  con¬ 
vention,  the  Bund  declared  that  “a  state  like 
Russia,  which  is  composed  of  a  number  of  different 
nationalities,  should  in  future  be  organized  on  fed¬ 
erative  principles,  each  nation  enjoying  complete 
autonomy,  irrespective  of  the  territory  occupied  by 
it,  and  “  that  the  idea  of  nationality  is  also  ap¬ 
plicable  to  the  Jewish  people.”  10 

After  such  a  declaration,  one  would  imagine  the 
course  of  the  Jewish  Bundists  to  be  clear.  But 
they  remained  a  peculiar  section  of  a  peculiar 
people.  The  Social-Democratic  Party  had  taken 
umbrage  at  the  Jews’  assuming  a  position  it  was 
willing  to  accord  to  other  nationalities,  and  in 
1903  it  broke  completely  with  the  Bund.  These 

174 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 

differences  and  dissensions  lasted  for  three  years, 
during  which  time  the  Bund  coquetted  with  Zion¬ 
ism.  The  logical  outcome  from  its  demands  was  a 
complete  recognition  by  itself  of  its  Jewish  nation¬ 
alist  character,  but  it  evidently  did  not  have  the 
courage  to  take  the  step.  Its  highest  ideal  re¬ 
mained  a  sort  of  cultural  nationalism,  which  was 
bound  up  with  the  use  of  Judeo-German  (Yiddish) , 
elevated  for  the  nonce  to  the  plane  of  a  national 
speech.  It  reproached  Zionism  for  refusing  to  take 
up  the  war  against  capitalism  and  for  striving  after 
an  Utopia.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  also  be  said 
that  the  Zionist  organization  had  little  real  feeling 
for  the  Bund.  It  had  studiously  avoided  taking 
part  in  any  politics,  local  or  national,  in  the  states 
in  which  its  adherents  lived.  In  course  of  time  and 
under  the  stress  of  circumstances,  the  Bund  had 
changed  its  economic  program,  and  become  a  revo¬ 
lutionary  society.  Any  connection  with  it  would 
have  proven  fatal  to  Zionist  work  in  Russia,  and 
would  have  been  fraught  with  infinite  harm  to  the 
Jews  in  general.  And  it  was  evident  that  the  Bund 
wished  to  make  use  of  Zionism  to  its  own  ends.  In 
1906,  the  opportunity  was  offered  it  to  round  off 
its  national  character,  when  the  Poles  succeeded  in 
securing  recognition  from  the  Workingmen’s  Dem- 

175 


ZIONISM 


ocratic  Party  as  a  national  body  irrespective  of 
territorial  limitations.  But  the  Bund  laid  down  its 
arms  and  accepted  the  ignominious  role  of  capitulat¬ 
ing  to  the  Democratic  Party,  thus  giving  itself  its 
own  death-blow. 

I  have  referred  above  to  the  fear  that  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  the  Poale  Zion  would  inspire  and  suggest 
imitation.  That  this  fear  was  not  unwarranted 
was  proved  by  the  constitution  of  the  Mizrachi 
group.  At  the  Fifth  Congress  the  radical-minded 
young  Zionists  had  banded  together  into  the  so- 
called  Democratic  Fraction.  Though  religious 
questions  in  no  manner  entered  into  the  program 
of  the  Fraction,  it  was  quite  evident  that  its  mem¬ 
bers  were  not  attached  to  the  Orthodox  view  of 
Jewish  theory  or  practice,  and,  as  they  were  very 
determined  in  their  own  views,  and  evidently  pur¬ 
posed  to  effect  an  influence  not  only  on  the  decisions 
of  the  Congress,  but  also  upon  the  character  of  the 
whole  Zionist  organization,  the  orthodox  Zionists 
took  alarm  and  commenced  to  gather  themselves 
into  a  separate  body.  This  alarm  was  heightened 
by  the  proceedings  of  the  all-Russian  Zionist  Con¬ 
ference  at  Minsk,  in  1902,  where  the  discussion  on 
the  “  Kultur  ”  question  seemed  to  show  that  this 
Kultur  might  become  a  dangerous  weapon  in  the 

176 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 

hands  of  the  radicals.  For  the  Mizrachi  the 
Zionist  ideal  is  bound  up  with  a  strict  adherence  to 
the  ideas  and  forms  of  traditional  Judaism.  It  is 
true  that  at  the  Second  Congress  11  and  as  a  result  of 
the  Kultur  debate,  a  resolution  was  adopted  em¬ 
phasizing  the  point  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Zionist 
organization  to  do  nothing  to  offend  the  scruples  of 
the  Orthodox,  or  “  Gesetzestreuen,”  as  they  prefer 
to  be  called,  and  this  resolution  was  reiterated 
at  subsequent  meetings.  For  the  Mizrachists  this 
was  not  sufficient.  They  did  not  wish  the  ideas 
represented  by  the  Fraction  and  other  radical  ele¬ 
ments  to  permeate  the  everyday  life  of  the  Zionist 
societies.  They  desired  also  to  emphasize  the 
point  to  those  of  their  own  particular  persuasion 
that  Zionism  was  in  no  way  opposed  to  Orthodoxy, 
but  was  in  reality  part  and  parcel  of  its  religious 
outlook.  This  group  was  founded  in  Vilna,  and  it 
held  its  first  yearly  meeting  at  Lida,  Russia, 
February  23,  1903,  under  the  leadership  of  its 
spiritual  father,  Rabbi  J.  Reines  of  that  place.  At 
that  time  it  claimed  to  have  as  many  as  eleven 
thousand  members,  and  since  then  it  has  spread  its 
influence  into  the  most  disparate  portions  of  the 
Diaspora.  It  maintains,  at  Jaffa  and  Jerusalem, 
model  schools  on  modern  lines  but  upon  a  Mizrachi 

177 


ZIONISM 


basis.  Its  representatives  at  the  Congress  have 
been  well  organized,  and,  as  it  officially  takes  no 
sides  on  political  and  practical  questions,  it  makes 
its  voice  heard  only  when  it  believes  that  the  prin¬ 
ciples  for  which  it  stands  specifically  are  in  danger. 

The  Mizrachi  have,  in  this  way,  run  a  strong 
religious  thread  through  the  fabric  of  Zionism, 
and  it  has  not  at  all  times  been  easy  to  meet  their 
exigencies  in  the  solution  of  other  than  purely  re¬ 
ligious  questions,  for  Jewish  religious  premises 
are  too  closely  interwoven  with  Jewish  life.  This 
difficulty  became  acute  at  the  Tenth  Congress,  and 
it  was  apparent  how  dangerous  it  was  to  allow 
such  cross-currents  to  disturb  the  tide  of  a  stream 
which  in  itself  did  not  run  all  too  smoothly.  The 
question  of  a  grant  in  aid  to  the  Jaffa  Hebrew 
Gymnasium,  which  was  supposed  to  set  its  teaching 
in  a  direction  away  from,  rather  than  towards,  tra¬ 
ditional  beliefs,  not  only  called  for  the  opposition 
of  the  Mizrachi,  but  threatened  to  drive  them  from 
the  Congress  and  out  of  the  organization.  The 
efforts  at  a  compromise  were  only  half  successful, 
for  the  Mizrachi  body  as  a  whole  refused  to  give 
its  vote  of  confidence  to  the  work  of  its  delegates, 
and  the  Mizrachi  convention  which  dealt  with 
the  matter  a  little  while  after  the  close  of  the 

178 


SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 


Congress  failed  to  heal  the  breach  within  its  own 
ranks.13 

The  position  of  the  Mizrachi,  in  its  attitude 
towards  the  Congress,  is  a  difficult  one,  but  that  of 
the  Congress  towards  the  Mizrachi  is  no  less  em¬ 
barrassing.  In  the  practical  question  at  issue  during 
the  Tenth  Congress,  the  position  taken  by  the 
Mizrachi,  that  no  official  recognition  should  be 
given  to  the  Jaffa  Gymnasium,  but  that,  if  such 
recognition  was  accorded,  a  similar  recognition  was 
due  to  the  Tachkemoni  (Mizrachi)  schools  as  well, 
was  fully  justified.  If  the  Congress  represents  all 
the  various  tendencies  in  Zionism,  all  have  the 
right  to  demand  equality  of  treatment.  But  the 
whole  discussion  and  the  warmth  of  spirit  en¬ 
gendered  by  it  show  how  dangerous  is  this  intermix¬ 
ture  of  religious  considerations  with  official  Zionist 
work.  Anything  like  a  u  Kulturkampf  ”  would  be 
most  unfortunate,  perhaps  even  fatal.  With  wise 
and  felicitous  foresight,  Herzl  had  seen  that  Zion¬ 
ism  can  fulfil  its  undertaking  only  if  it  dismisses  all 
such  questions  from  its  concern,  and  his  immediate 
followers  have  always  held  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  organization  to  stand  clear  of  such  entangle¬ 
ments  and  simply  prepare  the  ground  which  shall 

179 


ZIONISM 


make  possible  various  manifestations  of  the  Jewish 
spirit  in  Palestine. 

One  further  phase  demands  more  than  a  passing 
notice,  for  it  has  acquired  much  credit,  not  only  in 
Zionist  quarters,  but  in  Jewry  in  general.  It  has 
not  gone  the  length  of  forming  a  party;  its  funda¬ 
mental  idea  precluded  such  a  practical  outcome. 
But  its  subtle  influence  has  been  such  that  its  adepts 
have  raised  it  to  a  certain  prominence  by  giving  it 
an  appellation,  Ahad  ha-Amism. 

[Notes,  pp.  227-228] 


180 


CHAPTER  VIII 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  THE  PHILOSOPHY 
OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

It  was  in  the  very  midst  of  the  upward  movement 
of  anti-Semitism  in  Germany  that  an  attack  was 
made  upon  Jewish  historians  in  general  through 
a  criticism  of  the  most  complete  account  that  has 
as  yet  been  written  of  Jewish  history — the  monu¬ 
mental  work  of  Heinrich  Graetz.  This  attack 
was  commenced  by  Heinrich  von  Treitschke,1  the 
historian  of  modern  Germany  and  a  noted  publicist. 
It  was  continued  by  Theodor  Mommsen,2  the  his- 
tonan  of  ancient  Rome,  himself  a  well-wisher  of 
the  Jews  and  their  defender.  The  burden  of  the 
complaint  seemed  to  be  that  the  point  of  view 
adopted  was  short-sighted  and  circumscribed,  and 
that  events  and  movements  in  Jewish  history  were 
regarded  in  their  relation  to  Jewish  interests  rather 
than  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  countries 
in  which  the  Jews  lived  or  from  the  lofty  pinnacle 
of  universal  history.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to 

181 


ZIONISM 


discuss  the  pertinency  of  the  charge  or  to  plead 
that  von  Treitschke,  in  his  various  articles  on  the 
Jewish  question,  adopts  an  uncompromising  Ger¬ 
man  attitude,  and  Mommsen  champions  the  Ro¬ 
man  cause  against  the  Palestinian  Jews  in  the  fifth 
volume  of  his  history.  But,  apart  from  this,  in 
defense  of  the  Jewish  historians  it  may  be  said 
that  they  were  too  much  concerned  in  gathering  the 
stones  wherewith  to  build  up  the  edifice,  to  think 
largely  of  the  relation  of  the  edifice  to  the  buildings 
erected  by  others.  This  is  true  of  Jost,  Graetz, 
Paulus  (Selig)  Cassel,  Steinschneider,  Herzfeld, 
Gudemann,  and  even  of  Zunz,  the  founder  of  Jew¬ 
ish  literary  and  historical  criticism.  One  has  only 
to  think  of  the  mass  of  conflicting  testimony,  the 
inaccessibility  of  many  of  the  sources  out  of  which 
Jewish  history  has  to  be  written,  and  the  precon¬ 
ceived  notions  accumulated  during  the  centuries  of 
ignorance,  both  wilful  and  undesigned,  to  appre¬ 
ciate  the  immense  amount  of  work  to  be  done  be¬ 
fore  a  comprehensive  presentation  could  be  ac¬ 
complished. 

Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  the  earlier  Jewish 
historians  lay  under  the  ban  of  a  more  pressing  and 
direct  difficulty.  They  studied  and  wrote  at  a 
moment  when  the  Jewish  Middle  Ages  were  on  the 

182 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

point  of  developing  into  the  Modern  Epoch,  when 
for  the  first  time  since  the  Spanish-Arabic  period 
the  Jews  had  come  into  contact  with  a  new  world  of 
thought  and  with  new  aspirations.  The  real  diffi¬ 
culty  lay  in  the  very  fact  that  the  Jewish  historians 
not  only  wrote  but  also  worked.  Most  of  them 
stood  in  the  very  thick  of  the  fight,  and  did  much  of 
their  literary  labor  with  a  view  to  proving  and 
strengthening  the  religious  position  with  which  they 
were  affiliated.  Zunz’s  G otte s dienstliche  V ovtvdge 
was  written  in  favor  of  the  plea  that  a  sermon  in  the 
vernacular  should  be  introduced  into  the  service 
of  the  Synagogue.3  The  last  volume  of  Graetz’s 
history  was  nothing  more  than  a  long  polemic,  his¬ 
torical  in  character,  against  the  Reform  movement; 
while  Steinschneider’s  voluminous  and  minute  in¬ 
vestigations  were  intended  to  prove  that  the  Jews 
had  not  been  insensible  to  outside  cultural  influ¬ 
ences  with  which  they  had  been  brought  in  contact. 
From  a  certain  point  of  view,  then,  all  these  writ¬ 
ings  are  vitiated  by  the  fact  that  they  are,  in  a 
measure,  Tendenzschriften;  but  this  does  not  de¬ 
tract  from  their  value  in  other  respects. 

The  ground  thus  prepared,  it  became  possible  for 
Jewish  scholars  to  survey  the  history  of  their  people 
from  a  more  general  point  of  view.  During  the 

183 


ZIONISM 


last  twenty  years,  three  attempts  have  been  made 
to  write  a  philosophy  of  Jewish  history.  The  first 
is  that  of  James  Darmesteter,4  written  with  all  the 
elegance  and  charm  with  which  that  scholar  was 
wont  to  inform  whatsoever  his  pen  touched.  But 
Darmesteter,  although  in  his  youth  a  student  of 
Jewish  theology,  had  become  too  far  removed  from 
Jewish  life  and  from  contact  with  his  Jewish  breth¬ 
ren  to  understand  fully  the  forces  at  work  among 
them.  Jewish  history  was  to  him  a  dead  body, 
into  which  he  put  the  knife  of  the  calm  and  cool 
investigator.  He  characterizes  his  own  position 
when  he  says : e  “  Not  yet  have  all  those  engaged 
in  these  studies  [i.  e.,  history  of  religion,  etc.] 
reached  that  degree  of  serene  impartiality  where 
facts  are  studied  for  the  sole  purpose  of  being 
understood,  and  where  thought  is  carried  to  a 
height  that  will  not  permit  of  conclusions  dictated 
in  advance  by  the  ephemeral  prejudices  of  politics, 
of  faith,  or  of  metaphysics. ”  He  had  a  surer 
knowledge  of  Zoroastrianism  than  of  Judaism. 
He  probably  looked  upon  the  Jews  as  he  did  upon 
the  Parsees — a  remnant  that  has  survived  from 
times  gone  by,  interesting  to  the  historian,  especially 
to  one  who  had  issued  from  them,  and  who  was 
concerned  that  a  decent  tombstone  should  be  set 

184 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

upon  their  grave.  For  in  his  concluding  paragraph 
we  read : 6 

Does  this  mean  that  Judaism  should  nurse  dreams  of  ambition, 
and  think  of  realizing  one  day  that  “  invisible  church  of  the 
future,”  invoked  by  some  in  prayer?  This  would  be  an  illusion, 
whether  on  the  part  of  a  narrow  sectarian  or  on  that  of  an 
enlightened  individual.  .  .  .  And  when  the  nation  who  made 
the  Bible  shall  have  disappeared — the  race  and  the  cult — though 
leaving  no  visible  trace  of  its  passage  upon  earth,  its  imprint  will 
remain  in  the  depth  of  the  heart  of  generations,  who  will,  uncon¬ 
sciously  perhaps,  live  upon  what  has  been  implanted  in  their 
breasts. 

Evidently  Darmesteter  did  not  realize  that  in 
Eastern  Europe  there  were  millions  of  these  his 
Jewish  brethren  who  were  not  ready  for  suicide  or 
interment,  but  had  visions  of  Jewish  life  very  differ¬ 
ent  from  those  entertained  by  the  elegant  litterateur 
and  versatile  scholar  in  the  French  capital.  In 
Darmesteter’s  presentation  the  personal  note  is 
wanting  entirely.  He  is  concerned  chiefly  in  show¬ 
ing  that  the  Jews  have  not  been  vagabonds  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  nor  have  they  been  held  in  the 
rigid  vise  of  their  own  constricted  circle;  that  they 
have  been  present  at  all  the  great  junctures  in  the 
world’s  history,  and  have  done  as  fair  a  share  of 
the  work  as  could  in  reason  be  expected  of  them; 
and,  finally,  through  the  prophetic  portions  of  their 

185 


ZIONISM 


Bible  they  have  sent  a  force  into  the  world  that  will 
last  to  the  end  of  time.  Darmesteter  is  concerned 
with  an  honorable  past;  he  has  no  thought  for  the 
present,  and  no  hope,  at  least  no  particularly  Jewish 
hope,  for  the  future.  He  is  a  Frenchman  of  the 
Jewish  race. 

A  somewhat  different  note  is  struck  by  Simon 
Dubnow.7  The  painstaking  historian  of  the  Jews 
in  Poland  and  Russia  was  better  situated  than  his 
French  predecessor  to  know  the  people  of  whom 
he  wrote.  He  had  devoted  a  singularly  fertile  pen 
to  elucidating  the  political  and  communal  life  of  his 
brethren  living  in  the  great  East  End  of  Europe. 
He  was  in  daily  intercourse  with  many  of  their 
leaders,  and  was  therefore  in  a  much  better  posi¬ 
tion  to  know  their  mind  and  express  their  hopes. 
The  more  the  wonder  that  one  finds  no  mention 
by  him  of  the  newer  hope  that  had  for  fully  thirty 
years — his  essay  was  first  published  in  1893 — 
been  transforming  his  Jewish  countrymen.  It  is 
true  that  he  speaks  of  a  “Jewish  national  soul 
but  this  is  merely  the  deposit  of  “  a  mass  of  similar 
impressions  which  have  cystallized.”  And  as  Jew¬ 
ish  history  is  both  national  and  universal,  it  is  to 
the  universal  side  that  we  ought  to  bend  our  efforts. 
“  Union  with  mankind  at  large,  on  the  basis  of  the 

186 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

spiritual  and  intellectual,  the  goal  set  up  by  the 
Jewish  prophets  in  their  sublime  vision  of  the 
future,  is  the  ultimate  ideal  of  Judaism’s  noblest 
votaries.”  Religion,  race,  and  especially  the  com¬ 
munity  of  historical  fortunes,  are  the  elements 
that  have  held  the  Jews  together  in  the  past. 
Presumably  these  factors  are  to  have  the  same 
effect  in  the  future,  though  Dubnow  does  not  dilate 
on  this.  The  true  significance  of  Jewish  history,  he 
finds,  lies  in  the  role  it  has  played  of  conciliator:  it 
has  accomplished  its  end  as  far  as  the  Biblical  part 
is  concerned,  and  he  believes  that  the  time  is  not 
very  far  when  “  the  second  half  of  Jewish  history, 
the  record  of  two  thousand  years  of  the  Jewish 
people’s  life  after  the  Biblical  period,  will  be  ac¬ 
corded  the  same  treatment.”  A  better  knowledge 
of  this  history  will  secure  respect  for  the  Jewish 
people,  because  it  will  be  a  source  of  sublime  moral 
truths.  He  ends  with  these  words,  “  In  this  sense, 
Jewish  history  in  its  entirety  is  the  pledge  of  the 
spiritual  union  between  the  Jews  and  the  rest  of  the 
nations.” 

As  an  historian,  Dubnow  characterizes  the  inter¬ 
play  of  Jewish  movements  and  uncovers  the  under¬ 
lying  spiritual  “  motives  ”  with  a  master  hand.  But 
one  who  is  historian  and  philosopher  is  not,  of  neces- 

187 


ZIONISM 


sity,  also  a  prophet.  Dubnow  seems  to  be  a  prophet 
of  soft  illusions  in  a  time  of  stern  realities.  There 
is  a  sort  of  nebulous  uncertainty  about  the  prophecy 
which  reminds  one  of  the  many  beauteous  peans 
on  the  Messianic  time  that  grace  the  columns  of 
the  Western  Jewish  press.  His  message  to  his 
suffering  Jewish  brethren  is  to  continue  to  suffer 
nobly  and  continue  to  demonstrate  that  they  are 
worthy  of  their  heroic  past.  In  such  advice  there 
is  neither  light  nor  leading. 

Ahad  ha-Am  has  delved  far  deeper  into  the  Jew¬ 
ish  conscience  than  either  of  the  two  preceding.  I 
do  not  know  that  he  has  ever  written  anything  that 
bears  so  ambitious  a  title  as  a  Philosophy  of  Jewish 
History.  Darmesteter  and  Dubnow  are,  ex  pro- 
fessio,  historians.  Ahad  ha-Am  is  a  student  of 
philosophy,  and  his  historical  ken  has  a  philosophic 
depth  entirely  wanting  in  his  predecessors.  In  ad¬ 
dition,  he  is  in  perfect  sympathy  with  the  people, 
for  whose  ills  he  is  seeking  a  solution,  and  the  cause 
of  whose  ills  he  proposes  to  study.  In  his  own  soul 
he  has  felt  all  that  his  people  has  suffered;  and  yet 
he  has  sufficient  detachment  to  study  its  ills  with 
a  severity  that  does  honor  to  his  acumen,  as  his 
feeling  does  to  his  character.  His  main  theory  as 

183 


Vx'isr?xJtno?'pp 


'  . %  ?  . 


r 

hi 

! 

; 


SIX  STAMPS  OF  THE  JEWISH  NATIONAL  FUND 

The  cancelled  stamp  is  a  post-stamp  used  In  the  Jewish  Colonies  In  Palestine 


facing  p.  188 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 


to  the  cause  of  Jewish  unrest  is  laid  down  in  the 
opening  paragraph  of  The  Way  of  Life: 

The  vicissitudes  of  Israel  throughout  the  Dispersion,  but  par¬ 
ticularly  during  these  latter  days  of  ours,  make  it  plain  that  we 
Jews  cannot  hope  to  lead  the  life  of  a  separate  nation  among 
strange  peoples,  and  yet  be  as  one  of  them,  taking  part  in  all 
the  activities  about  us  as  though  we  were  full-blooded  natives  of 
the  lands  of  our  sojourn,  and  at  the  same  time  remain  a  nation 
peculiar  in  views  and  distinct  in  character.  .  .  .  Misfortunes 
maim  our  manhood,  favorable  circumstances  our  national  spirit. 
The  former  make  of  us  men  despicable  in  the  eyes  of  our  fellows, 
the  latter  a  nation  despicable  in  its  own  sight.  .  .  .  Two  paths 
lie  stretched  out  before  us:  the  path  of  life  and  the  path  of  death. 
If  our  eyes  are  fixed  upon  the  death  goal,  then  let  us  disregard 
the  counsel  of  temporizing  healers,  let  us  await  death  with  a 
calm  spirit.  ...  If,  however,  we  choose  life,  then  it  behooves  us 
to  build  us  a  house  for  ourselves  alone,  and  in  a  secure  spot — and 
can  there  be  any  spot  securer  than  the  land  inherited  from  our 
fathers? — then  it  behooves  us  to  consecrate  our  noblest  powers, 
material  and  spiritual,  to  the  one  purpose,  the  regeneration  of 
our  people  in  the  land  of  our  forefathers. 

The  national  feeling,  Ahad  ha-Am  holds,  has 
never  really  been  dead  among  the  Jews.  It  has 
been  overwhelmed  and  driven  into  a  corner  by  the 
feeling  of  self-love  which  has  dominated  so  large  a 
section  of  the  people.  He  finds  that  this  self-love 
is  prevalent  even  among  those  who  have  held  aloft 
the  standard  of  Nationalism  and  of  Zion;  that  the 

189 


13 


ZIONISM 


moral  concept  which  the  word  “  national  ”  typifies 
to  him,  has  given  way  to  a  materialistic  connota¬ 
tion.  In  fact,  his  continued  cry  has  been  that  the 
Western  Jews  have  paid  for  their  emancipation  with 
moral  slavery,  and  that  what  he  calls  “  the  funda¬ 
mental  morality  of  the  Jewish  spirit  ”  affords  the 
true  historical  basis  for  the  ideal  of  the  national 
revival.  In  other  words,  the  term  “  national  ”  is 
to  him  no  empty-sounding  word,  but  it  is  expressive 
of  the  very  essence  of  the  Hebraic  spirit,  and  the 
Hebraic  spirit  is  the  spirit  of  Prophetism.  In 
turn,  the  spirit  of  Prophetism  is  the  spirit  of  right¬ 
eousness,  righteousness  not  only  in  word  but  also 
in  actions.  If  the  Jews  are  really  to  follow  the 
ideal  traced  out  for  them  by  the  greatest  of  their 
teachers,  and  become  a  peculiar  people  in  the  sense 
of  “  exemplars  of  righteousness,”  they  must  be  en¬ 
abled  to  live  unfettered  and  to  “  develop  along  their 
own  lines,  as  one  of  the  social  units  of  humanity.” 

Ahad  ha-Am  is  insistent  upon  this,  the  real  mean¬ 
ing,  as  he  considers  it,  of  the  Jewish  national  senti¬ 
ment.  His  interest  is  centered  upon  something 
other  than  the  political  form  of  any  resettlement  of 
Jews  in  Palestine.  He  is  not  even  interested  that 
such  a  settlement  should  be  large  in  extent.  His  real 
concern  is  for  the  form  of  Jewish  culture  that  will 

190 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

i 

be  fructified  there.  In  Palestine  it  would  be  pos¬ 
sible  to  revive  the  real  spirit  of  Judaism,  if — and 
only  if — those  who  settle  there  are  fully  imbued 
with  the  true  sense  of  this  spirit.  Palestine  is  to  be 
“  a  spiritual  center.”  But  in  order  that  it  may  be¬ 
come  this,  the  Jews  in  the  Diaspora  who  are  work¬ 
ing  towards  this  end  must  also  be  regenerated 
spiritually,  so  that  “  the  spiritual  center  which  is 
destined  to  be  created  in  our  ancestral  country  ” 
shall  come  as  a  “  response  to  a  real  and  insistent 
national  demand.” 

The  attempt  has  been  made  in  various  quarters 
to  set  up  the  postulate  of  a  “  spiritual  center  ”  as 
a  negation  of  what  is  called  Herzlian  Zionism,  or 
at  least  as  a  substitute  for  it.  It  is  true  that  Ahad 
ha-Am  has  been  engaged  at  various  times  in  ardent 
polemics  with  Zionists,  even  with  official  Zionism.8 
But  the  differences  have  often  seemed  to  be  rather 
the  concomitant  of  violent  discussion  regarding 
one  or  the  other  phase  of  Zionist  effort  than  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  movement  as  a  whole.  In  the  same 
way,  though  he  was  one  of  the  leaders  in  the 
earlier  Hibbat  Zion  enthusiasm,  he  violently  depre¬ 
cated  the  manner  in  which  colonization  in  Palestine 
was  then  attempted,  a  journey  to  Palestine  in  the 
early  “  nineties  ”  of  the  last  century  having 

191 


con- 


ZIONISM 


vinced  him  of  the  false  basis  on  which  it  was  being 
carried  out.9  Ahad  ha-Am  was  a  member  of  the 
First  Zionist  Congress,  in  1907.  He  has  criticised 
the  Basel  Program  as  one-sided  and  as  purely  polit¬ 
ical  and  economic  in  character.  He  holds  that  this 
political  character  narrows  down  the  Zionist  con¬ 
ception  and  robs  it  of  half  of  its  true  meaning. 
But  at  the  same  time,  he  acknowledges  it  as  a  part 
of  his  own  program.  “  On  one  side,”  he  says,  “  we 
must  work  for  the  creation  of  an  extensive  and 
well-ordered  settlement  in  our  ancestral  land;  but, 
on  the  other  side,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  neglect 
the  effort  to  create  there,  at  the  same  time,  a  fixed 
and  independent  center  for  our  national  culture, 
for  learning,  art,  and  literature.”  19  In  fact,  he 
seems  to  demand  the  formation  of  “  a  special  or¬ 
ganization  for  cultural  work,”  which  shall  march 
hand  in  hand  with  the  political  Zionist  body.11 

Ahad  ha-Am  is  the  great  preacher  of  prophetical 
Hebraism.  According  to  his  own  analysis,  one  of 
the  characteristics  of  the  prophets  was  their  extrem¬ 
ism.  It  is  evident  that  he  imitates  them  at  least  in 
this  particular.  It  must  be  conceded  that  a  number 
of  the  Zionist  leaders,  especially  during  the  early 
days  of  the  movement,  had  little  sense  for  the  higher 
aspect  of  the  whole  question.  In  excuse  of  them  it 

192 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

may  be  said  that  many  had  issued  from  surround¬ 
ings  that  were  out  of  touch  with  the  spiritual  and 
religious  life  of  Judaism,  and  the  economic  and 
political  side  of  their  work  engaged  so  much  of  their 
attention  as  to  cover  the  whole  field  of  their  vision. 
But  the  moment  Herzl  came  into  real  contact  with 
the  Jewish  people,  he  issued  the  parole:  “  Zionism 
means  a  return  to  Judaism  prior  to  a  return  to  a 
Jewish  land,”  12  even  though  he  might  not  have 
understood  the  word  Judaism  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner  as  Ahad  ha-Am  or  others.  The  various  dis¬ 
cussions  at  the  Congresses  on  the  question  of  Kul- 
tur,  far  removed  though  they  were  at  times  from 
the  kernel  of  the  subject,  showed  that  the  idea  was 
germinating  in  the  minds  of  many  of  the  delegates. 
In  fact,  at  the  very  first  Congress,  Doctor  Ehren- 
preis  proposed  the  formation  of  a  special  organiza¬ 
tion  for  the  study  and  the  spread  of  the  Hebrew 
language,13  one  of  the  measures  which  Ahad  ha-Am 
specifies  as  leading  towards  the  rebirth  of  the 
Hebraic  spirit. 

Indeed,  it  is  a  true  sign  that  the  spirit  for  which 
Ahad  ha-Am  pleads  is  still  alive  among  the  Jewish 
people  that  those  who  have  gone  to  Palestine  have, 
entirely  of  their  own  accord  and  without  any  sug¬ 
gestion  from  the  outside,  proceeded  directly  to  the 

193 


ZIONISM 


cultivation  of  the  Hebrew  spirit  along  lines  that 
lead  to  the  goal  envisaged  by  Ahad  ha-Am.  That 
spirit  has  been  refreshed  and  refined  by  the  sur¬ 
roundings  in  which  it  moves;  more  normal  condi¬ 
tions  of  life  have  had  the  natural  effect,  and  a 
noble  ideal  has  not  been  soiled  for  want  of  free 
room  in  which  to  develop.  There  the  Hebrew 
language  is  indeed  being  cultivated,  and  is  gradually 
driving  Judeo-German  and  the  European  tongues 
to  the  wall.  It  is  being  employed  in  schools  and  in 
daily  intercourse.  Art  has  commenced  to  find  a 
home  there,  due  to  the  efforts  of  Boris  Schatz  and 
the  Bezalel  School.  The  Hebrew  Gymnasium  at 
Jaffa  may  be  criticised  in  certain  directions;  these 
faults  are  part  of  the  residue  brought  from  the 
Galut  and  will  be  removed  by  filtration.  For  the 
Gymnasium  and  the  Tachkemoni  schools  serve 
one  and  the  same  end — to  train  the  young  in  the 
spirit  of  the  fathers,  in  the  rejuvenated  ideals 
of  the  past.  Jewish  life  cannot  be  unilateral  in  its 
development.  The  Jews  coming  to  Palestine  will 
have  passed  through  the  sieve  of  various  civiliza¬ 
tions,  will  have  acquired  varied  experiences,  which 
have  become  a  part  of  their  being.  Above  all, 
the  authentic  voice  of  the  Synagogue  has  spoken 
in  various  tones  to  its  different  members  and  in 


194 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

diverse  notes.  They  will  come  with  divergent  views 
of  life,  which  they  cannot  be  asked  to  relinquish 
when  living  together.  Indeed,  Zionism  would  fail 
of  its  truest  purpose — to  insure  surroundings  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  permit  the  free  development 
of  minds  that  are  themselves  free — if  it  neglected 
to  take  account  of  these  divergences. 

It  is  good  to  have  one  that  cries  out — let  us 
hope,  not  in  the  wilderness — how  inconsiderately 
soever  the  crying  may  be  done.  The  expression 
“  spiritual  revival  ”  is  not  a  mere  catchword.  It 
contains  a  heartening  appeal,  which  is  to  prick  the 
torpid  idealism  of  the  Jewish  public  and  bring  back 
to  it  the  full  intent  and  meaning  of  Jewish  nation¬ 
alism.  But  if  the  “  local  center  ”  is  to  be  estab¬ 
lished — and  for  this  Ahad  ha-Am  pleads — it  can 
only  be  done  by  much  spade-work.  The  building 
must  be  erected  from  the  ground  up,  and  not  from 
the  top  down.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  be¬ 
ginning  with  1897,  everything  of  a  material  kind 
had  to  be  created — Congress,  bank,  National 
Fund,  all  the  various  instruments,  paraphernalia, 
and  trappings  which  are  the  outer  shell  of  a  national 
revival.  The  prophets  of  old  cried  condemnation 
upon  every  part  of  the  body  politic — king,  priests, 
and  people,  even  on  other  prophets.  But  the  diffi- 

195 


ZIONISM 


cult  task  of  representing  law  and  order,  of  keeping 
the  ship  of  state  above  the  waters,  rested  with  the 
men  in  command  at  Jerusalem.  The  prophets  saw 
above  and  beyond  the  heads  of  those  whom  they 
criticised;  they  often  failed  to  see  the  ground  upon 
which  they  trod.  Isaiah  could  say  that  neither 
Assyria  nor  Egypt  was  more  than  a  broken  reed 
upon  which  to  rest;  but  one  was  threatening  from 
the  north,  the  other  was  menacing  from  the  south. 
A  “  splendid  isolation  ”  may  have  been  morally 
right;  it  was  politically  unsound. 

Ahad  ha-Am’s  plaint,  that  Zionism  leaned  too 
much  towards  the  political  side,  as  Chovevi  Zion 
had  leaned  too  much  to  the  practical,  may  be  justi¬ 
fied  in  theory.  But  neither  the  “  politicals  ”  nor 
the  “  practicals  ”  desired  the  Zionist  movement  to 
issue  as  did  the  Bene  Mosheh;  and  to  say  with 
Ahad  ha-Am,  that  “  Zionism  has  need  not  only  of 
subscriptions  and  shares,  but  even  more  of  souls,”  11 
is  to  utter  a  platitude.  For  these  souls  were 
in  the  process  of  being  won  by  the  very  methods 
that  were  being  condemned.  It  was  only  by 
“  subscriptions  ”  to  the  Jewish  Colonial  Trust,  to 
the  National  Fund,  and  to  many  other  Zionist 
foundations,  that  many  were  able  to  show  their  at¬ 
tachment  to  the  cause.  Gathered  within  its  ranks 

196 


AHAD  HA-AM  AND  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 

were  many  of  “  the  poor  and  the  needy,”  to  whom 
“  subscriptions  and  shares  ”  meant  a  real  sacrifice 
— a  signal  evidence  of  the  very  spirit  for  which 
Ahad  ha-Am  was  contending.  In  the  various  clubs, 
societies,  and  meetings,  the  old  bonds  were  being 
reforged,  and  the  gaze  was  being  converged  upon 
what  was  still  an  ideal  center,  but  which,  it  was 
hoped,  would  some  day  become  invested  with 
reality,  and  which  Ahad  ha-Am  has  so  trenchantly 
described  as  possessing  “  a  strong  attraction  for  all 
of  them,  not  because  of  some  accidental  or  tem¬ 
porary  relation,  but  by  virtue  of  its  own  right,”  and 
in  which  “  all  will  find  at  once  a  purifying  fire  and 
a  connecting  link.”  15 

[Notes,  pp.  228-229] 


197 


CHAPTER  IX 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

Among  the  many  misconceptions  current  in  re¬ 
gard  to  Zionism,  one  of  the  most  popular  would 
confine  its  function  to.,  some  particular  class  of  Jews, 
to  some  section  distinguished  either  by  its  economic 
condition  or  by  its  peculiar  conception  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  or  to  those  living  in  a  certain  part  of  the 
great  Diaspora.  It  has  been  said,  and  it  has  been 
written,  that  such  a  concentration  of  Jews  and  such 
a  centralization  of  Jewish  efforts  as  is  foreshadowed 
by  the  Basel  Platform,  may  be  a  means  for  mitigat¬ 
ing  in  part  some  of  the  Jewish  misery  that  is  only 
too  apparent  in  Eastern  Europe,  that  it  may  well 
prove  another  outlet  for  those  unfortunate  ones  who 
are  forced  through  the  Russian  and  Roumanian 
mill,  that  it  may  relieve  the  pressure  which  is  so 
evident  in  the  Ghettos  of  Galicia,  and  offer  a  further 
means  of  livelihood  to  those  who  are  in  too  active 
a  competition  in  the  great  European  and  American 
centers.  In  a  word,  Zionism,  regarded  from  this 

198 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

angle,  has  no  real  message  to  the  emancipated  Jew 
of  Western  Europe  and  America,  and  its  sole 
significance  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  another  attempt 
to  heal  the  wounds  inflicted  upon  the  Jews  by 
modern  industrial  developments. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  assertion  is  made  that 
Zionism  may  have  a  message  for  those  who  have 
remained  within  the  four  walls  of  Orthodox 
Judaism,  and  is  the  logical  outcome  of  the  ideas 
and  hopes  that  have  been  conserved  wherever  tra¬ 
ditional  Judaism  has  retained  its  hold,  but  for 
those  Jews  whose  trend  of  thought  and  whose 
course  of  life  have  led  them  away  from  the  beaten 
track,  it  may  be  a  matter  of  indifference  what  the 
ultimate  fate  of  Palestine  is,  and  a  Jewish  center 
has  no  part  in  the  conception  they  have  of  the 
future  of  the  Jews  and  no  religious  worth  in 
their  image  of  the  future  of  the  Jewish  faith. 
This  is  very  frankly  the  attitude  of  the  Reform 
wing  of  the  Synagogue  in  Western  Europe  and  in 
America.  For  them  Zionism  has  no  message,  or,  if 
it  has  any,  it  is  one  of  despair  and  an  unworthy  ac¬ 
quiescence — and  a  somewhat  unwilling  one  at  that 
— in  circumstances  which  we  have  not  religious  and 
moral  power  enough  to  overcome.  The  leaders  of 
American  Reform  have  gone  even  further  than 

199 


ZIONISM 


this,  and  look  upon  Zionism  as  the  negation  of  the 
best  hope  and  promise  of  Judaism,  as  a  wilful 
abjuration  of  the  role  traced  for  Judaism  by  the 
greatest  of  the  prophets.  The  dissemination  and 
diffusion  of  the  Jews  throughout  all  parts  of  the 
world  is  elevated  by  them  to  the  position  of  doc¬ 
trinal  sublimity,  and  stress  is  laid  upon  this  disper¬ 
sion  as  the  means — one  might  almost  say,  the  only 

means — for  the  proper  fulfilment  of  the  Jewish 
1 1 

mission. 

Now,  we  may  leave  out  of  account  any  at¬ 
tempt  to  define  the  word  mission  when  used  of  a 
people.  To  do  so  would  lead  dangerously  near 
to  religious  speculations  and  to  the  discussion 
of  questions  which  might  raise  the  odium  theo- 
logicum .  But  the  question  is  pertinent:  how  is 
such  a  mission  to  be  carried  out,  if  in  the  process 
the  bearers  of  the  mission  are  bound  to  succumb  ? 
It  is  true  that,  until  quite  modern  times,  the  var¬ 
ious  communities  of  Jews  maintained  their  exist¬ 
ence  in  a  manner  which  at  first  sight  seems  to  defy 
explanation.  Without  any  visible  unity,  without 
any  physical  or  ideal  center,  at  times  without  much 
intercommunion,  individual  bodies  of  Jews  have 
existed  in  all  corners  of  the  Diaspora.  They  have 
succeeded  in  existing  because  of  the  ideal  bond 

200 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

that  held  them  together,  a  common  past  and 
a  common  hope  for  the  future.  This  bond  has 
remained  practically  unchanged  throughout  the 
ages.  Judaism  has  been  surprisingly  free  from 
sectarian  schisms.  With  the  exception  of  that  of 
the  Karaites,  none  has  come  to  disturb  the  unity 
of  practice  and  aspiration  that  welded  the  differ¬ 
ent  communities  together  into  an  unseen  brother¬ 
hood.  Living  in  agglomerations  that  were  usually 
small  in  extent,  they  have  been  able  to  keep  up 
a  similar  communal  life  by  means  of  a  common 
practice.  Territorial  distinctions  have  been  dis¬ 
regarded  and  almost  obliterated.  In  the  early 
Middle  Ages  there  was  little  difference  between  the 
life  of  the  Palestinian  and  the  Babylonian  Jew,  as 
little  as  there  was  between  the  Continental  and  the 
English.  Even  the  distinction  between  Sefardic 
and  Ashkenazic  Jew  was  not  accentuated  until 
both  commenced  to  live  outside  the  countries  from 
which  they  derived  their  nomenclature.  An  Asher 
ben  Yehiel  could  become  an  authority  in  Spain,  a 
Solomon  ben  Adret  an  oracle  in  Germany.  To  the 
great  world-movements  with  which  they  came  in 
contact  they  were  not  insensible.  They  had  a  fair 
share  in  their  development,  and  were  themselves 
not  uninfluenced  by  the  contact.  But  only  in  rare 

201 


ZIONISM 


instances  was  this  influence  allowed  to  drive  deep 
down  into  their  beings.  If  Philo  was  more  of  a 
neo-Platonist  than  he  was  a  Jew,  his  example  was 
not  followed;  neither  was  Spinoza’s.  From  Saadia 
to  Maimonides,  it  was  the  non-Jewish  systems  of 
philosophy  that  were  put  into  the  strait-jacket  of 
Jewish  theology.  In  most  cases  the  Jews  retired 
from  this  contact  before  the  harm  had  become  too 
great.  Hellenism  is  the  classic  example  of  the 
reverse  policy,  a  policy  in  consequence  of  which 
large  numbers  must  have  become  lost  to  the  Jewish 
cause. 

At  the  present  day,  however,  the  circumstances 
in  which  the  Jews  live  are  very  different.  The 
constitution  of  European  society  during  the  Middle 
Ages  was  such  as  to  favor  individual  groupings. 
Communities  were  disjointed  from  one  another; 
means  of  intercommunication  were  undeveloped; 
news  could  not  spread  easily  and  rapidly;  cities  were 
comparatively  small,  and  even  in  those  in  which 
contact  with  the  larger  world  would  have  affected 
adversely  Jewish  cohesiveness,  compensating  influ¬ 
ences  were  present  in  the  Ghetto  system  and  in  the 
steady,  though  scanty,  infiltration  from  country 
communities.  The  industrial  development  of  mod¬ 
ern  times  has  thoroughly  changed  conditions.  The 

202 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

rise  of  national  feeling  has  frowned  upon  other  com¬ 
binations  within  the  state,  so  that  a  general  leveling 
process  has  been  at  work.  Cities  have  grown  to 
immeasurable  proportions.  The  race  to  these  large 
centers  has  been  fast  and  furious.  Thus,  not  only 
have  the  Ghetto  walls  been  cast  down;  the  smaller 
communities  outside  of  the  large  cities  have  been 
greatly  depeopled  of  their  Jewish  inhabitants. 
France  is  a  classic  example.  We  think  of  the  flour¬ 
ishing  communities  in  the  Midi,  in  Avignon,  Car- 
pentras,  Carcassone,  etc.,  where  now  many  of  the 
synagogues  are  closed,  and  Jewish  centers  are  on  the 
verge  of  disappearance,  because  most  of  the  Jews 
have  gone  to  Paris,  there  to  be  swallowed  up  in  the 
great  army  of  the  unchurched.  Italy  is  another 
instance.  Bari,  Otranto,  Reggio,  Ancona,  Pesaro, 
and  many  other  places  that  would  constitute  an 
“  Italia  Judaica,”  have  become  denuded  of  Jews, 
in  favor  of  Rome  and  Florence.  Similar  conditions 
in  other  countries  could  easily  be  cited. 

In  addition,  the  language  and  customs  of  their 
surroundings  have  pressed  heavily  upon  the  Jews. 
In  the  Middle  Ages,  documents  concerning  trans¬ 
actions  between  Jews  and  non-Jews  were  usually 
drawn  up  in  two  languages,  of  which  one  was  He¬ 
brew.  Such  documents  have  come  down  to  us  from 

203 


ZIONISM 


Spain,  from  Germany,  and  from  England.  There 
was  nothing  strange  in  this;  for  even  among  non- 
Jews  a  literary  tongue,  the  Latin,  was  still  the  lan¬ 
guage  in  which  official  documents  of  all  sorts  were 
drawn  up.  In  modern  times,  modern  languages 
have  displaced  the  old  literary  tongue.  Latin  has 
been  relegated  to  the  store-room  of  the  university, 
and  Hebrew  to  the  study-room  of  the  learned. 
Custom,  social  practice,  and  social  life  have  been 
unfavorable  to  the  retention  of  peculiar  Jewish 
observances,  which  have  been  largely  banished  from 
collective  gatherings  and  from  the  household. 
They  have  been  relegated  to  the  synagogue  and 
confined  there.  But  even  the  synagogue  has  had 
to  give  way  to  the  unifying  forces  at  work  to-day. 
We  may  think  that,  in  many  instances,  this  has 
gone  too  far,  and  an  unwarranted  desire  for  as¬ 
similation  has  found  a  pretext  in  what  is  called 
“  the  needs  of  the  day.”  But  even  where  this  has 
not  been  the  case,  many  concessions  have  had  to 
be  made.  There  is  no  doubt  that  such  concessions 
are  bound  to  increase  in  the  future,  and  in  this 
manner  Jewish  communities  will  tend  to  develop 
away  from  each  other.  The  German  Jew  is  not  so 
apt  to  feel  at  home  in  Anglo-Jewish  surroundings 
or  in  the  synagogues  of  English-speaking  countries 

204 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

as  he  was  wont  to  formerly,  nor  the  Italian  Jew 
in  Germany.  “  Deutsche  Staatsbiirger  jiidischen 
Glaubens  ”  have  commenced  to  lose  touch  with 
their  French  brethren,  and  in  some  circles  in  the 
United  States  we  have  heard  mutterings  about  an 
“  American  Judaism.”  The  points  of  contact  are 
evidently  growing  less  in  number  and  weaker  in 
strength,  and  as  Jewish  unity  tends  to  disappear, 
a  consequent  deadening  of  Jewish  consciousness  is 
bound  to  occur.  There  is,  indeed,  evidence  that 
the  process  has  already  begun.  It  is  true  that  at 
all  times  such  a  danger  has  been  more  or  less 
present.  Many  have  been  lost  to  the  Jewish  cause. 
This  enables  us  to  understand  the  relatively  small 
number  of  Jews  existing  at  the  present  day,  in  spite 
of  the  acknowledged  fecundity  of  the  race.  But  the 
ravages  occasioned  by  modern  conditions — active 
anti-Semitism  on  the  one  hand,  passive  social  op¬ 
pression  on  the  other — are  nothing  less  than  alarm¬ 
ing.  As  regards  Western  Europe  and  America,  this 
loss  has  been  offset  of  late  years  by  immigration 
from  Eastern  Europe.  But  such  immigration  can¬ 
not  continue  indefinitely,  and  the  continued  depres¬ 
sion  of  the  masses  in  Eastern  Europe  is  having  its 
effect  in  making  the  material  with  which  the  recon¬ 
structive  process  in  the  West  is  being  carried  on  less 
14  205 


ZIONISM 


worthy  of  its  purpose  and  less  effective  in  carrying 
it  out. 

I  have  left  out  of  all  account  the  ignoble  sug¬ 
gestion,  made  among  others  by  Schopenhauer,1  Ed¬ 
uard  von  Hartmann,2  Mommsen,3  and  the  Rouma¬ 
nian  historian  Xenopol,4  that  it  would  be  a  service¬ 
able  act  to  the  nations  with  which  they  live,  if  the 
Jews  would  subscribe  to  the  Christian  creed,  even 
if  they  do  not  believe  in  it.  It  is  sad  to  see  so 
eminent  and  so  truly  liberal  a  scholar  as  Professor 
Theodor  Noldeke  in  Strassburg 5  subscribe  to  a 
similar  view :  that  Jewish  parents  ought  to  bring  up 
their  children  in  the  Christian  faith,  in  order  that 
these  children  may  be  able  to  become  full  Germans, 
and  be  released  from  the  suffering  the  parents  have 
undergone,  an  idea  ventilated  also  by  a  Jew  who 
signs  himself  “  Benedictus  Levita  ”  (both  of  which 
names  he  besmudges  in  using  them)  in  the  Preus- 
sische  Jahrbiicher.6  The  whole  idea  must  be 
repugnant  to  every  right-minded  Christian,  as  it 
must  be  to  any  but  a  bloodless  Jew. 

From  the  foregoing  observations  it  will  be  clear 
that  some  means  are  necessary  to  counteract  the 
corroding  influences  to  which  reference  has  been 
made.  From  whatever  point  of  view  we  regard 
the  situation,  the  unity  of  Israel  must  be  restored. 

206 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

A  complete  reversion  to  the  unity  of  practice  seems 
impossible,  as  modern  conditions  in  the  Diaspora 
will  continue  to  increase  disfavorably  to  the  Jews. 
The  Jewish  hope  must  be  reconstituted  upon 
modern  lines.  Embodied  in  a  physical  center,  and 
that  center  illumined  by  a  rekindled  light,  it  will 
serve  as  a  point  towards  which  the  thoughts,  aspira¬ 
tions,  and  longings  of  the  Diaspora  Jews  will  con¬ 
verge,  and  from  which  they  will  draw,  each  in  his 
own  measure,  that  sufficiency  of  moral  and  religious 
strength  that  will  better  enable  them  to  resist  the 
encroachments  of  their  surroundings.  The  knowl¬ 
edge  that  in  some  one  place,  in  some  one  country 
— and  that  country  the  most  hallowed  by  its  recol¬ 
lections — Jewish  life  is  possible  without  the  un¬ 
natural  restrictions  that  naturally  hem  it  in  else¬ 
where,  will  act  as  a  centripetal  force,  the  very  force 
that  is  so  much  needed  to-day. 

It  may  be  objected  that  this  will  constitute  a 
religious  life  by  delegation  to  others.  But  the 
erection  of  a  Jewish  center  in  Palestine  would  in 
no  way  carry  with  it  the  nullification  of  duties  rest¬ 
ing  upon  Jews  elsewhere.  The  Reform  Jew,  with 
his  ideal  of  a  mission,  could  carry  forward  that  mis¬ 
sion  in  the  future  as  he  has  in  the  past.  The  theory 
that  Zionism  looks  for  the  concentration  of  all 

207 


ZIONISM 


Jews  on  one  spot  is  a  theory  of  windy  unreality, 
which  has  loomed  large  in  the  minds  of  those  only 
who  do  not  understand,  or  who  persist  in  mis¬ 
representing,  its  basal  teaching.  For  Palestine,  even 
in  the  broadest  definition  ever  thought  of  by 
prophet  or  singer,  is  insufficient  to  contain  a  large 
portion  of  the  Jewish  population  of  the  world 
in  addition  to  its  present  inhabitants.  In  very  fact, 
a  serious  stimulus  would  be  given  to  the  spreading 
of  the  very  mission  it  is  feared  will  be  endangered. 
The  closer  Jews  are  kept  within  the  fold,  the 
greater  their  interest  in  Jewish  life  and  Jewish 
thought,  the  more  propagators  there  will  be  for 
that  mission.  The  early  Reformers  at  least  were 
insistent  upon  the  view  that  whatever  divergence 
from  received  practice  they  favored  was  not  due 
to  a  simple  love  for  divergence  itself,  but  was  the 
result  of  the  difficulties  experienced  in  overcoming 
a  situation  that  demanded  a  greater  sacrifice  than 
their  congregants  felt  able  to  make.  Their  spiritual 
descendants  might  well  welcome  any  movement 
calculated  to  render  the  Jew  more  willing  to 

sacrifice  than  he  is  to-day. 

Another  serious  difficulty  that  seems  to  confront 
the  Western  Jew  is  the  supposed  conflict  that 
might  arise  between  his  responsibility  to  a  Jewish 

208 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

concentration  and  his  allegiance  and  fealty  towards 
the  state  of  which  he  is  a  citizen.  The  struggle  for 
political  emancipation  in  European  countries  dur¬ 
ing  the  nineteenth  century  has  left  its  mark  behind 
in  a  certain  nervousness  on  the  part  of  the  Jew 
concerning  the  fruits  of  the  victory  gained.  This 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  only  in  one  country,  France, 
had  the  right  been  conceded  freely.  In  other 
states,  it  had  been  won  after  a  period  of  political 
strife  that  had  not  been  wanting  in  acerbity.  The 
Jews  felt  that  their  claim  to  citizenship  was  still 
questioned  by  a  not  inconsiderable  portion  of  their 
fellow-citizens.  They  themselves  seemed  to  con¬ 
sider  it,  not  a  right  inherent  in  their  status,  but 
the  result  of  a  barter  in  which  they  had  to  pay  an 
exorbitant  price.  That  exorbitant  price  was  an 
exaggerated  nationalist  ardor  for  the  country  of 
their  adoption.  This  feeling  was  fed  still  further 
by  the  charge  of  the  anti-Semites,  that  the  Jews 
formed  an  imperium  in  imperio.  The  latter  charge 
might  well  be  neglected,  for  it  was  advanced  long 
before  the  rise  of  modern  Zionism;  and  anti- 
Semites,  whose  warmth  is  apt  to  be  fed  by  the 
heat  of  passion,  are  not  known  to  be  overscrupulous 
in  testing  the  veracity  of  their  facts  or  the  cogency 
of  their  arguments.  M.  Theodore  Reinach,  re- 

209 


ZIONISM 


garding  the  Jewish  question  in  France  from  another 
point  of  view,  makes  the  price  to  be  paid  a  moral 
life  unapproachable  by  large  masses  of  men — “  all 
our  men  of  commerce  must  be  honest,  all  our 
millionaires  simple  and  charitable,  all  our  learned 
men  modest,  all  our  journalists  patriotic  and  dis¬ 
interested, n  7  a  degree  of  perfection  not  demanded 
of  any  other  element  in  the  French  state.  But  quite 
apart  from  such  considerations,  there  are  many 
Jews  who  are  most  sincere  in  their  fear  that  Zionism 
and  patriotic  citizenship  are  somewhat  incompatible 
with  each  other.  This  is  practically  the  burden  of 
the  official  protest  published  by  the  council  of  the 
German  Rabbiner-Verband  two  months  previous  to 
the  first  Basel  Congress,  in  1897.  It  was  repeated 
by  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations 
in  1 8 98, 8  and  it  has  continually  reappeared  as  a 
ghost  that  frightens  and  refuses  to  be  laid. 

Now,  I  have  already  hinted  that  this  fear  is 
based  upon  an  abnormal  valuation  of  the  contents 
of  citizenship.  It  is  founded  on  the  errors  that 
citizenship  is  coincident  with  racial  unity,  and  that 
a  good  citizen  can  have  no  other  ties  of  allegiance 
than  those  which  bind  him  to  the  state  of  which 
he  is  a  member.  That  this  is  not  the  case  can 
be  seen  by  the  most  casual  observer.  Germany 

210 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

and  Austria-Hungary  are  examples  to  hand  of  the 
falsity  of  the  whole  theory.  In  the  one,  we  find 
Danes,  Poles,  Czechs,  Wends,  and  Walloons,  be¬ 
sides  a  number  of  smaller  races,  all  owning  fealty 
to  the  German  Empire.  In  Austria-Hungary  we 
have  Germans,  Poles,  Magyars,  Czechs,  and  Croats 
doing  homage  to  the  same  emperor-king.  No  less 
a  German  than  the  Emperor  William  II  has  said: 
a  The  kingdom  of  Prussia  is  made  up  of  many 
races  that  are  proud  of  their  past  history  and 
of  their  individuality  [Eigenart].  This  does  not 
prevent  them  from  being,  above  all  [vor  Allem] 
excellent  Prussians.”  Our  own  country  has  a 
population  made  up  of  the  most  diversified  racial 
elements.  Here  the  Germans  have  done  excel¬ 
lently  in  preserving  their  own  peculiar  customs  and 
national  traditions.  They  have  their  German 
Sangerbund,  their  German  societies;  they  cultivate 
their  national  literature,  and  sustain  German  news¬ 
papers  and  German  societies.  No  charge  has  ever 
been  brought  against  them  that,  for  this  reason, 
they  are  less  American  than  their  co-citizens  of 
other  races.  The  Irish-Americans  have  done  the 
same,  and  much  more.  They  have  intervened 
actively  in  the  social  and  political  affairs  of  their 
mother-land.  No  more  fervent  or  devoted  nation- 


211 


ZIONISM 


alists  exist  to-day  than  the  Americans  of  Irish 
extraction.  In  Canada,  the  French  have  gone  even 
further.  They  have  to  all  real  purpose  remained 
French,  though  they  have  become  excellent  British 
subjects,  just  as  the  Boers  persist  the  Dutchmen 
they  were  before  the  year  1903,  though  loyally  ac¬ 
cepting  British  citizenship. 

The  point  need  not  be  labored  further,  nor  the 
examples  multiplied.  They  serve  as  the  best  refuta¬ 
tion  of  the  view  held  by  many  Jews  of  the  supposed 
conflict  between  Zionism  and  citizenship,  and  show 
that  this  view  is  ill-imagined.  The  state  cannot 
demand  that  the  individual  shall  relinquish  his 
peculiarities,  his  traditions,  his  family  relationship. 
Nor  can  it  ask  of  any  group  to  give  up  its  historic 
associations,  its  connection  with  other  groups  6f  the 
same  race  or  of  the  same  religion  living  elsewhere. 
It  can  only  demand  that  as  citizens  all  elements 
shall  put  the  needs  of  the  state  in  which  they  live 
in  the  forefront  of  their  thought  and  render  to  it 
and  to  the  ideals  for  which  it  stands  the  best 
effort  they  are  capable  of.  Should  a  conflict  ever 
arise  between  the  duties  towards  the  state  in  which 
the  Jew  lives  and  his  responsibility  to  the  recon¬ 
structed  Jewish  home,  he  will  be  forced  to  make 
his  choice — in  exactly  the  same  manner  as  the  Ger- 

212 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

man-American  or  the  Irish- American  would  be  com¬ 
pelled  to  do  in  similar  circumstances.  But  as  the 
Jewish  home  is  not  to  be  founded  for  territorial  or 
other  aggrandizement,  such  a  conflict  lies  in  the 
penumbra  of  pure  speculation. 

In  preparation  for  this  home,  Zionism  has  com¬ 
menced  to  lay  the  foundation  stones.  Its  work  in 
Palestine  is  a  surety  that  the  end  can  be  reached, 
if  only  the  will  is  there.  But  it  has  been  less  suc¬ 
cessful  in  organizing  the  Jewish  communities  in 
the  Old  and  New  World  for  this  or,  in  fact,  for 
any  combined  purpose.9  And  yet  the  conviction 
forces  itself  upon  us  that  some  such  organization 
of  Jewry  is  necessary.  I  should  have  used  the  ex¬ 
pression  “  international  Jewry,”  had  not  that  ex¬ 
pression  been  seized  upon  in  some  quarters  to 
denote  a  certain  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Jews 
to  the  aspirations  of  the  various  states  in  which 
they  live.  If  the  Jewish  interests  at  stake  are 
purely  religious,  as  is  often  claimed,  it  stands  to 
reason  that  some  common  direction  must  be  given 
to  these  interests.  Even  as  a  religious  body,  we 
cannot  measure  our  numbers  with  those  of  other 
faiths,  and  the  losses  we  sustain  by  secession  or 
because  of  indifference  are  hardly  more  than  made 
good  by  a  birthrate  that  is  also  steadily  decreasing. 

213 


ZIONISM 


r 

At  one  time  the  idea  was  cherished  that  the  Alli¬ 
ance  Israelite  Universelle  would  serve  as  a  unifying 
force,  but  the  parallel  societies  founded  in  other 
countries  rendered  nugatory  the  hopes  that  had  been 
set  upon  the  larger  program  of  the  Alliance.  The 
new  societies  are  doomed  to  follow  in  the  wake  of 
the  parent  body.  The  very  nature  of  their  forma¬ 
tion,  the  help  they  are  bound  to  demand  from  the 
Governments  under  which  they  are  organized,  and 
upon  whom  they  reckon  for  the  furthering  of  their 
end,  vitiate  them  at  their  source,  as  far  as  their 
general  Jewish  service  is  concerned. 

Nor  have  more  ambitious  attempts  been  more 
successful.  The  Russian  excesses  in  the  “  eighties  ” 
and  “  nineties  ”  of  the  last  century  might  have 
led,  and  ought  to  have  led,  to  a  permanent  pooling 
of  Jewish  interests.  Unfortunately  they  did  not, 
probably  because  Jewish  leaders  in  philanthropy 
and  charity  insisted  upon  regarding  the  sinister 
Russian  business  as  an  event  rather  than  as  a  state, 
and  persisted  in  the  fatuous  belief  that  conditions 
could  be  met  as  they  arose.  The  same  infirmity 
of  purpose  was  evident  in  the  conferences  held  at 
Frankfort  (1904),  London  (1905),  and  Brussels 
(1906).  Some  agreements  were  reached  upon 
minor  points,  and  measures  were  taken  looking  to 

214 


ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 

the  regulating  of  emigration  from  Russia.  But 
the  meetings  finished  as  they  had  begun,  and  were 
fruitless  of  permanent  results.  Evidently  some 
other  basis  must  be  found  upon  which  the  future 
of  the  Jews  and  of  Judaism  is  to  be  built.  Zion¬ 
ism  proposes  to  offer  that  basis,  one  that  is  wide, 
inclusive,  self-confident  without  boasting,  and  in¬ 
formed  with  an  outlook  courageous  and  undis¬ 
mayed. 

To  speculate  upon  the  future  of  Zionism  would 
be  absurd.  To  predict  its  success  upon  the  lines 
of  its  modern  development  would  be  as  reckless  as 
to  foretell  its  failure.  The  transmutation  of  values, 
to  use  a  Nietzschean  term,  that  is  being  accom¬ 
plished  in  these  latter  days  makes  a  sober  mind 
wary  of  prophecy.  The  situation  of  Turkey  is 
more  distraught  than  ever;  the  political  status  of 
Palestine  may  suffer  a  change  at  any  moment. 
However,  the  continuing  dispersion  of  the  Jews 
into  yet  new  corners  of  the  globe  makes  the  Jewish 
patriot,  whether  he  be  purely  religious,  or  purely 
national,  or  religiously  national,  fearful  of  the 
consequences.  The  incessant  pressure  of  the  out¬ 
side  world  is  having  its  slow  and  cumulative  effect. 
They  who  do  not  see  this  are  blind  wilfully.  Some 
such  solution  of  the  problem  as  that  foreshadowed 

215 


ZIONISM 


in  the  Zionist  outlook  seems  necessary  and  desir¬ 
able — if  there  is  to  be  any  outlook  left,  and  if  the 
“  remnant  that  returns  ”  is  to  be  worthy  of  its 
issue.  It  has  been  said  in  another  connection  10  that 
a  people  that  has  had  a  great  past,  if  it  is  to  have 
a  correspondingly  great  future,  must  also  have  a 
great  present.  For  this  great  present  Zionism  is 
working,  in  order  that  Judaism  may  have  a  still 
more  glorious  future.  And  in  this  sense  Zionism 
and  Judaism  become  one  and  the  same. 

[Notes,  pp.  230-231] 


216 


pp.  17-23] 


NOTES 


Chapter  I 

THE  PRE-HERZLITES 

(pp.  17-47) 

‘Arakin,  17a. 

3  See  the  excellent  presentation  by  Max  L.  Margolis,  The 
Mendelssohnian  Programme,  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  xvii. 
531  et  seq. 

*Jew.  Quart.  Rev.  xviii.  273.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  an 
early  Jewish  philosopher  was  not  insensible,  however  far  he 
had  traveled  from  the  beaten  track,  to  the  old  Jewish  hope.  In 
his  theological  treatise,  Spinoza  remarks:  “Indeed,  unless  the 
fundamentals  of  their  [i.  e.,  the  Jews’]  religion  bring  upon  them 
effeminacy  of  mind  and  character,  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that, 
with  the  opportunity  afforded,  since  human  affairs  are  notoriously 
changeable,  they  may  again  recover  their  empire,  and  God  elect 
them  to  himself  anew.”  Tractatus  Teol.  Pol.  iii.  53 ;  in  English 
translation,  London,  1868,  p.  87. 

*  Protokolle  und  Aktenstiicke  der  Zweiten  Rabbiner-Versamm- 
Iung,  Frankfort,  1845,  p.  106.  In  somewhat  similar  spirit,  but 
in  cryptic  language,  the  founder  of  the  science  of  national 
psychology,  H.  Steinthal — who,  singularly  enough,  failed  to 
understand  the  psychology  of  his  own  people — calls  Zion  “the 
innermost  kernel  of  the  inner  consciousness  of  modern  nations  ” 
(quoted  in  Ahad  ha-Am,  Selected  Essays,  Philadelphia,  1912, 
p.  180),  and  Adolphe  Franck  speaks  of  Jerusalem  as  “  une  ville 
ideale  qui  n’existe  que  dans  le  passe  et  dans  l’avenir,  dans  le 
souvenir  et  dans  l’esperance  ”  (Nouvelles  Etudes  Orientales,  Paris, 
1896,  p.  302).  In  a  tone  unworthy  of  a  great  philosopher,  Her¬ 
mann  Cohen  says,  “Weil  wir  Palastina  allenfalls  als  eine 
Reisegelegenheit  betrachten  ”  (Ein  Bekenntniss  in  der  Judenfrage, 
Berlin,  1880,  p.  14).  See  also,  Greenstone,  The  Messiah  Idea,  pp. 
243  et  seq. 


217 


NOTES 


[pp.  24-36 


6 The  most  significant  is  Bulgaria,  with  “a  peasant  people  who 
have  been  for  five  hundred  years  barely  a  name  in  the  world  at 
large  or  even  to  themselves.”  Monthly  Review,  Jan.  1906,  p.  25. 

6  Mommsen,  Romische  Geschichte,  v.  542.  The  Earl  of  Cromer 
(Ancient  and  Modern  Imperialism,  p.  93)  has  a  fine  paragraph 
on  the  relation  of  Rome  to  the  Jews,  which  he  finishes  with  the 
following  sentence,  “The  Jews  were  vanquished  and  dispersed, 
but  they  never  were  assimilated.” 

7  Vogelstein  and  Rieger,  Gesch.  der  Juden  in  Rom,  i.  26;  Jean 
Reville,  Die  Religion  zu  Rom,  p.  10. 

8  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Zamenhof  was  originally  a 
nationalist  Jew.  In  1881  he  convened  a  meeting  of  his  Jewish 
fellow-students  at  the  Moscow  University  for  the  purpose  of  form¬ 
ing  a  Jewish  colony  in  some  part  of  the  globe,  which  should 
become  the  center  of  an  independent  Jewish  state.  See  Jewish 
Chronicle,  Sept.  6,  1907,  p.  17. 

9  Orpheus,  German  transl.,  p.  192. 

10  On  the  modernization  of  the  Synagogue  service  and  the 
danger  of  its  becoming  Christianized,  see  a  fair  criticism  from 
the  standpoint  of  incipient  Zionism  in  the  article  by  Margolis, 
already  referred  to,  Jew.  Quart.  Rev.  xvii.  534.  Comp,  also 
Louis  Zangwill,  Church  or  Synagogue,  in  Jewish  Chronicle,  Nov. 
29.  1907,  P-  8. 

11  See  such  passages  as  Amos  ix.  14;  Zeph.  iii.  20;  Zach.  x.  10; 
Ps.  xiv.  7;  Is.  ii.  1-4;  Deut.  xxx.  1-5;  and  comp.  Schultz,  Alttesta- 
mentliche  Theologie,  Gottingen,  1889,  p.  742. 

12  See  Monatsschrift  fur  Gesch.  und  Wissenschaft  des  Juden- 
thums,  liii.  534. 

13  On  Jewish  conversions  to  Christianity,  see  N.  Samter,  Juden- 
taufen  im  19.  Jahrhundert,  Berlin,  1906.  Some  data  from  this 
book  will  be  found  in  Die  Welt,  x.  no.  6,  pp.  10  et  seq.  Comp,  also 
Ruppin,  The  Jews  of  To-Day,  1913,  pp.  181  et  seq. 

14  A  collection  of  such  sayings  will  be  found  in  Zisling,  Yalkut 
Erez  Yisrael,  Vilna,  1890;  Baruch  David  Hakohen,  Sefer  Hibbat 
ha-Arez,  Jerusalem,  1897. 

15  In  1540  an  Augsburg  Jew  seems  to  have  had  Messianic  ideas 

218 


pp-  36-39] 


NOTES 


in  connection  with  the  founding  of  a  Jewish  state.  See  the  letter 
of  Sebastian  Theodoricus  Windsheim  to  Dr.  Vogler,  in  Anzeiger 
des  Germanischen  National-Museums,  1894,  p.  103. 

16  Revue  .  .  .  von  Bohmen,  Oct.  1903,  p.  14. 

17  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  last  edition  of  Hess’  book  was 
burnt  by  order  of  his  family,  in  order  to  remove  this  “  offense.” 
See  Die  Welt,  ii.  no.  9,  p.  16. 

18  Simon  Szanto,  editor  of  the  Vienna  Neue  Zeit.  I  have  the 
quotation  from  the  Zionistisches  A-B-C  Euch,  Berlin,  1908,  p.  66. 

19  The  original  essay  was  published  in  the  Jahrbuch  fur 
Israeliten,  1863-1864,  and  has  been  republished  with  an  intro¬ 
duction  by  Theodor  Zlocisti  in  Judischer  Volkskalender,  Briinn, 
1903-1904,  pp.  90  et  seq. 

20  See  Publications  of  the  American  Jewish  Historical  Society, 
viii.  106  et  seq. ;  xxi.  230  et  seq.  In  France,  too,  a  voice  was  heard, 
the  owner  of  which  deserves  to  be  rescued  from  oblivion.  Lazar 
Levy-Bing  of  Nancy  was  a  successful  banker  and  later  a  member 
of  the  Chambre  des  Deputes  (1871).  He  espoused  warmly  the 
cause  of  Jewish  nationalism  at  a  time  and  amid  circumstances  in 
which  one  would  least  have  expected  it.  It  was  the  heyday  of  the 
resuscitated  monarchy  in  France,  a  time  of  much  French  chauvin¬ 
ism,  in  which  the  Jews  took  a  considerable  part.  Levy-Bing  was 
fired  by  a  pamphlet  written  by  a  Christian,  Abraham  Petavel. 
Though  a  Protestant  minister  and  professor  in  Neuchatel  and  an 
outspoken  conversionist,  Petavel  had  become  a  member  of  the  Al¬ 
liance  Israelite  Universelle.  In  1864  an  anonymous  pamphlet  ap¬ 
peared  in  Geneva  under  the  title,  Devoir  des  nations  de  rendre  au 
peuple  juif  sa  nationalite.  Though,  at  a  later  time,  Petavel  denied 
the  authorship,  he  is  responsible  for  a  poem,  La  fille  de  Sion,  ou  la 
retablissement  d’Israel  (Paris,  1864),  which  expresses  views 
identical  with  those  in  the  pamphlet.  It  was  the  discussion  in 
the  Archives  Israelites  on  this  pamphlet  that  brought  Levy-Bing 
to  the  front  with  a  warm  plea  for  Jewish  nationality  and  a 
demand  that  Jerusalem  should  be  made  the  ideal  center  of  the 
world.  See  Die  Welt,  1903,  no.  51. 

21  No.  243,  “Constantinople,  le  23  Germinal.  Bonaparte  a  fait 

219 


NOTES 


[pp.  40-51 

publier  une  proclamation,  dans  laquelle  il  invite  tous  les  juifs  de 
1’Asie  et  de  l’Afrique  a  venir  se  ranger  sous  ses  drapeaux  pour 
retablir  1’ancienne  Jerusalem.”  See  Max  Kohler  in  Publ.  Amer. 
Jew.  Hist.  Soc.,  x.  172. 

22  See  Max  J.  Herzberg  in  The  Maccabaean,  xiii.  4. 

23  See  Arnold  White  in  Newberry  House  Magazine,  June,  1893. 
Disraeli  is  also  said  to  have  supported  Laurence  Oliphant’s 
scheme  for  an  autonomous  state  in  Palestine.  See  Jewish  Chron¬ 
icle,  Dec.  16,  1904,  p.  25. 

*4  Remarks  upon  the  Present  Condition  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine, 
Kerleys,  1852. 

25  See  Maurice  Leon  in  The  Maccabaean,  ii.  256. 

20  See  Die  Welt,  i.  no.  22,  p.  7. 

Extracts  from  Daniel  Deronda,  vol.  ii,  book  1,  have  been  put 
together  in  the  Publ.  of  the  Fed.  of  American  Zionists,  no.  3, 
June,  1899,  under  the  title,  George  Eliot  as  a  Zionist. 

Essay  xviii  of  The  Impressions  of  Theophrastus  Such,  re¬ 
printed  in  the  Publ.  of  the  Fed.  of  American  Zionists,  no.  5. 

29  Joseph  Jacobs  in  Macmillan’s  Magazine  for  1877;  reprinted 
in  Jewish  Ideals,  p.  80. 

80  David  Kaufmann  in  Monatsschrift,  1877,  P-  266. 

81  There  were  undoubtedly  exceptions,  but  they  kept  their  peace 
before  the  larger  public.  As  such,  I  might  mention  Mr.  Gustav 
Cohen  of  Hamburg,  who,  in  1896,  published,  but  for  private 
circulation  only,  a  pamphlet,  Die  Judenfrage  und  die  Zukunft, 
which  he  had  written  in  1891  under  the  double  influence  of 
Daniel  Deronda  and  the  passage  of  the  Russian  Exiles  on  their 
way  to  America. 

Chapter  II 

THE  COLONIZATION  OF  PALESTINE 
(pp.  48-59) 

Graetz,  Geschichte,  xi.  554;  the  translation  is  from  the 
English  ed.,  v.  672. 

Cited  in  Cohn,  Some  Problems  of  Modern  Jewry,  p.  15. 

220 


pp.  52-64] 


NOTES 


"All.  Israel.  Univ.  Bulletin,  1869,  p.  64. 

4  In  general,  see  Fabius  Schach,  Eine  auferstandene  Sprache, 
Berlin,  n.  d. ;  N.  Slousch[z],  The  Renascence  of  Hebrew  Lit., 
Phila.,  1909,  p.  19.  For  Palestine  in  particular,  see  David  Yellin, 
Die  Renaissance  der  hebraischen  Sprache  in  Palastina,  in  Die 
Welt,  xiv.,  1081  et  seq. ;  English  transl.  in  Zionist  Work  in 
Palestine,  London,  1911,  pp.  143  et  seq. 

c  I  cannot  refrain  from  adding,  in  a  note,  the  reasoned  judg¬ 
ment  of  one  of  the  latest — let  me  say,  also,  one  of  the  sanest — 
observers,  Mr.  Sydney  Brooks.  To  the  adept  as  well  as  to  the 
critic  of  Zionism  the  following  words  have  a  pregnant  meaning: 
“  The  Irish  party  has  consistently  acted  on  the  principle  that  the 
salvation  of  Ireland  is  to  be  wrought  by  speeches  and  manoeu- 
vers  in  the  House  of  Commons;  it  has  neglected  the  intellectual, 
moral,  and,  in  a  large  part,  the  economic  progress  of  the  country 
in  order  to  devote  its  exclusive  power  to  the  constitutional 
panacea.  .  .  .  The  New  Ireland,  on  the  other  hand,  relies  for 
the  upbuilding  of  the  country  and  its  people  upon  the  practical 
work  of  Irishmen  in  Ireland,  scouts  the  notion  that  the  Irish  ques¬ 
tion  is  a  question  of  politics  merely,  and  insists  that  the  task  of 
betterment  should  no  longer  be  postponed  until  an  Irish  Parliament 
is  able  to  take  it  in  hand.”  See  his  Aspects  of  the  Irish  Question, 
London,  1912,  p.  87.  On  the  excellent  work  done  by  Sir  Horace 
Plunkett  in  this  connection,  see  an  informing  article  in  the  Monthly 
Review,  Jan.  1906,  and  in  Sydney  Brooks,  The  New  Ireland, 
1907,  p.  42. 

6  Lo  shinnu  et-leshonam,  Mekilta,  §  5,  beginning;  Shemot  Rabba 
to  Exod.  ii.  11,  and  parallels. 

Chapter  III 

LEO  PINSKER  AND  AUTOEMANCIPATION 

(pp.  60-81) 

1  First  ed.  1882;  2d  ed.  Briinn,  1903;  transl.  into  English  by 
Albert  A.  L.  Finkenstein,  Self-Emancipation,  London,  1891;  and 
by  David  S.  Blondheim,  The  Maccabaean,  x.  91  et  req.  Comp. 

15  221 


NOTES  [pp.  64-77 

Pinsker  and  His  Brochure,  by  Ahad  ha-Am,  transl.  by  Henrietta 
Szold,  Baltimore,  n.  d. 

2  Comp,  the  words  of  Nietzsche:  “  Valeur  de  Pantisemitisme: 
d  amener  les  juifs  a  se  poser  des  fins  plus  elevees  et  a  trouver 
repugnante  l’idee  de  l’absorption  par  les  etats.”  Oeuvres  post- 
humes,  xiii.  355. 

°  A  very  thoughtful  and  sympathetic  study  of  Lilienblum  has 
been  made  by  Leon  Simon,  Moses  Leib  Lilienblum,  Cambridge 
(England),  1912. 

4  A  somewhat  remarkable  collection  of  letters  and  opinions  on 
this  subject  has  been  put  together  by  Abraham  Jacob  Slutzky,  in 
his  Sefer  Shibhat  Ziyyon,  2d  ed.,  Warsaw,  1899. 

E  A  short  account  of  the  activity  of  the  Chovevi  Zion  will  be 
found  in  an  article  by  S.  Ravikovitch,  entitled  The  Palestine 
Committee  in  Odessa:  Its  Origin,  Development,  and  Activity, 
published  in  The  Maccabaean,  xiii.  16  et  seq.  See  also  M. 
Gliicksohn,  Das  Werk  der  Chowewe-Zion,  in  the  Palestine  number 
of  Die  Welt,  xiv.  1088  et  seq.;  in  the  English  translation,  Zionist 
Work  in  Palestine,  pp.  157  et  seq. 

°  1889,  Adar  Sheni  12;  republished  in  A1  Parashat  Derakim, 
Odessa,  1895,  pp.  1  et  seq. 

See  Selected  Essays  by  Ahad  ha-Am,  transl.  by  Leon  Simon, 
Phila.,  1912,  pp.  311  et  seq.;  comp.  pp.  125  et  seq. 

For  the  foregoing,  see  the  illuminating  presentment  by  Hen¬ 
rietta  Szold  in  The  Maccabaean,  viii.  207  et  seq. 

A  faithful  picture  of  the  early  colonies  is  given  and  a  warn¬ 
ing  note  sounded  as  early  as  1878  by  Fishel  Rosenzweig,  in 
Ha-Zefirah,  no.  33,  August  27  of  that  year.  The  warning  was 
repeated  by  the  same  writer  in  Ha-Asif,  ii.  182  et  seq.,  under  the 
title  We  alu  Moshi  im.  A  detailed  history  of  the  individual 
colonies  will  be  found  in  Curt  Nawratzki,  Die  judische  Kolonisa- 
tion  Palastinas,  1914,  pp.  no  et  seq. 


222 


pp.  85-98] 


NOTES 


Chapter  IV 

THEODOR  HERZL 
(pp.  82-107) 

1  First  ed.  1896.  Since  then  it  has  appeared  in  numerous 
editions  as  well  as  in  Theodor  Herzl’s  Zionistische  Schriften, 
Berlin,  1905. 

2  See  Jewish  Chronicle,  July  10,  1896,  p.  3.  It  was  at  this 
meeting  that  Lucien  Wolf  declared  the  scheme  to  be  practical, 
but  not  practicable  (ibidem,  p.  9).  At  a  later  time  Mr.  Wolf 
joined  hands  with  Zangwill  in  pursuing  the  policy  of  the  Ito, 
holding  that  Zionism  had  failed  because  it  attached  itself  “  to 
one  territory.”  See  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  12,  1906,  p.  36. 

3  It  is  said  that  this  designation  was  first  used  by  Birnbaum 
(Matthias  Acher)  in  his  article  Selbst-Emanzipation.  See  Ost  und 
West,  1902,  p.  576;  Ahad  ha-Am,  A1  Parashat  Derakim,  Berlin, 
1903,  P-  93- 

4  Eng.  transl.  by  Sylvie  d’Avigdor,  London,  1896;  2d  ed.  by 
J.  de  Haas,  New  York,  1904.  Translations  have  appeared  in 
French,  Hebrew,  Judeo-German,  Russian,  and  Bulgarian. 

6  “  I  had  not  intended  to  commence  a  personal  agitation  for  the 
Jewish  cause.”  Selbstbiographie,  in  Gesammelte  Schriften,  i.  18; 
Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  14,  1898,  p.  20. 

8  Protokoll  des  Siebenten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  9 ;  English, 
in  The  Maccabaean,  ix.  113. 

7  The  only  authority  I  have  for  this  statement  is  Lucien  Wolf 
in  his  article,  Zionism,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 

8  Protokoll  .  .  .  des  Zweiten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  222:  “  Der 
Zionismus  unternimmt  nichts,  was  dem  Religionsgesetze  des 
Judenthums  widerspricht.” 

9  Oesterreichische  Wochenschrift,  April  23,  1897. 

10  Die  Welt,  ii.  no.  48,  p.  7. 

11  “  There  are  some  theologians  who  assume  the  Messianic  period 
to  be  the  most  perfect  state  of  civilization,  but  do  not  believe  in 
the  restoration  of  the  Kingdom  of  David,  the  rebuilding  of  the 

223 


NOTES 


[pp.  98-103 


Temple,  or  the  repossession  of  Palestine  by  the  Jews.  They 
altogether  reject  the  national  hope  of  the  Jews.  These  theologians 
either  misinterpret  or  wholly  ignore  the  teaching  of  the  Bible, 
and  the  divine  promises  made  through  the  men  of  God.”  The 
Jewish  Religion,  2d  ed.,  1900,  p.  161. 

12  Dina  de-Malkuta  Dina.  Baba  Kamma,  113a,  etc. 

13  “  Zionism  would  have  us  return  to  the  primitive  stage  of  a 
national  religion.”  Karpeles,  Jews  and  Judaism  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century,  Phila.,  1905,  p.  63. 

14  See  his  National-Judenthum,  Leipzig  and  Vienna,  1897. 

10  See  his  article,  with  its  suggestive  title,  The  Zionist  Peril, 
in  Jew.  Quart.  Rev.  xvii.  1-25. 

10  See  his  address  in  The  Judaeans,  1897-1899,  pp.  68  et  seq. 

17  ibidem,  pp.  86  et  seq. 

1,1  Aspects  of  the  Jewish  Question,  London,  1902,  p.  18. 

1JYear  Book  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis 
for  1897-1898,  p.  xli. 

20  See  Die  Stimme  der  Wahrheit,  Berlin,  1905,  pp.  165  et  seq. 

21  Jew.  Quart.  Rev.  xv.  501 ;  comp,  also  ibidem,  xvi.  48. 

22  ibidem,  xvii.  342. 

23  The  protest  was  published  in  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des 
Judenthums,  no.  29,  July  16,  1897,  and  was  signed  by  Maybaum 
(Berlin),  Horowitz  (Frankfort),  Guttmann  (Breslau),  Auerbach 
(Halberstadt),  and  Werner  (Munich),  as  the  Vorstand  des 
Rabbiner-Verbandes  in  Deutschland.  It  ought  to  be  added  that 
this  action  on  the  part  of  the  Vorstand  was  taken  without  consulta¬ 
tion  of  the  whole  body  which  it  represented.  See  Rulf,  Erklarung 
gegen  Erklarung,  in  Die  Welt,  i.  no.  7.  Assent  to  the  “  protest  ” 
was  obtained  from  the  Rabbinerversammlung  at  its  meeting  in 
1898  only  by  an  unparliamentary  stifling  of  the  discussion.  I  may 
be  pardoned  for  citing  the  answer  to  this  protest  published  by  my 
father,  the  late  Gustav  Gottheil,  in  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des 
Judenthums  for  Sept.  3,  1897.  See  also  Herzl,  Gesammelte 
Zionistische  Schriften,  i.  21 1,  Protestrabbiner. 

224 


pp.  109-132] 


NOTES 


Chapter  V 

THE  JEWISH  CONGRESS 
(pp.  108-142) 

1 1  Sam.  viii. 

2  Certain  special  honors  shown  in  the  synagogue  to  descendants 
of  priestly  and  Levitic  families  are  merely  reminiscent. 

3  The  expression  is  that  of  Doctor  Solomon  Schechter. 

4  The  protest  had  been  made  the  first  time  by  Mr.  Ambassador 
Straus;  it  was  renewed  on  Nov.  19,  1898,  by  the  same  ambassador 
to  Tewfik  Pasha  in  these  words:  “The  United  States  does  not 
make  any  discrimination  between  its  citizens  based  upon  religion 
or  race,  nor  will  it  concede  to  any  other  government  the  right  or 
power  to  make  any  such  discrimination  in  respect  to  American 
citizens.”  See  United  States  Senate  Reports,  Foreign  Relations, 
for  1898-1899,  p.  1092.  This  protest  is  reasserted  in  a  letter  of  Mr. 
Secretary  Hay  to  Mr.  Charge  d’Affaires  Griscom,  dated  Feb.  28, 
1901.  See  Foreign  Relations  for  that  year,  p.  517.  The  regula¬ 
tions,  dated  respectively  Feb.  23,  1888,  and  Nov.  21,  1901,  will  be 
found  in  George  Young,  Corps  de  droit  ottoman,  Oxford,  1905, 
ii.  156. 

B  On  this  Cyprus  project  see  the  notes  I  have  gathered  in 
Jewish  Encyclopedia,  iv.  401,  and  Zionistisches  A-B-C  Buch, 
Berlin,  1908,  pp.  165  et  seq.  It  should  be  noted  that  Herzl  himself 
was  not  unfavorably  disposed  and  regarded  it  as  an  “  ultima 
ratio,  wenn  wir  nicht  reussieren,  und  eine  mitlaufende  Kom- 
bination,  wenn  wir  reussieren”;  ibidem,  p.  167. 

6  See  Protokoll  .  .  .  des  Sechsten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  Wien, 
1903,  p.  6. 

7  See  issue  of  July  17,  1903,  p.  6. 

8  See  the  text  of  the  whole  letter  in  Die  Welt,  Aug.  27,  1903, 
p.  1 ;  English  transl.  in  The  Maccabaean,  v.  250. 

0  See  the  Blue  Book  containing  the  Report  of  the  Work  of  the 
Commission  Sent  out  by  the  Zionist  Organization  to  Examine  the 
Territory  Offered  by  H.  M.  Government,  etc.,  London,  1905,  p.  4. 

10  See  the  London  Times,  Aug.  28,  and  Sept.  2,  1903.  A  little 

225 


NOTES  [pp.  137-154 

later  Sir  H.  H.  Johnston  in  a  measure  changed  his  view.  See 
Die  Welt,  1904,  no.  42. 

11  i  e.,  J[ewish]  Territorial]  Organization]  in  the  Judeo- 
German  pronunciation. 

12  See  his  Dreamers  in  Congress,  in  Dreamers  of  the  Ghetto, 
pp.  430  et  seq. 

13  New  Liberal  Review,  i.  615;  from  which  article  the  two 
following  quotations  are  also  taken. 

11  Protokoll  .  .  .  des  Fiinften  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  325;  Jew¬ 
ish  Chronicle,  London,  Jan.  3,  1902,  reprinted  in  The  Maccabaean, 
ii.  64  et  seq.  See  also  ZangwilPs  speech  at  the  Shoreditch  Town 
Hall,  reported  in  Jewish  Chronicle,  Feb.  7,  1902. 

15  “  Whichever  way  the  next  Congress  decides,  the  real  traitor 
will  be  he  who  does  not  loyally  accept  the  decision,  and  work 
heart  and  soul  with  the  majority,”  he  said  on  Shekel  Day,  1904. 
In  speaking  at  the  Jewish  Workingman’s  Club  in  London,  he 
added,  “  What  is  necessary  is  that  the  minority  should  abide  by 
the  vote  of  the  majority;  that  is  peace.” 

Chapter  VI 

THE  POST-HERZLIAN  PERIOD 

(pp.  143-164) 

1  See  Werner,  Die  jiidischen  Studentenverbindungen  in  Oester- 
reich,  in  Ost  und  West,  1901,  pp.  415  et  seq.;  Zionistisches  A-B-C 
Buch,  p.  246. 

2  See  Albert  Friedenberg,  Zionist  Studies,  New  York,  1904,  pp. 
23  et  seq.;  Zionistisches  A-B-C  Buch,  pp.  243  et  seq.  Note  also 
the  Jewish  gymnastic  societies  in  Munich,  Berlin,  Frankfort-on- 
the-Oder,  Freiburg,  Posen,  Leipzig,  Mannheim,  and  Breslau,  and 
their  publications,  Jiidische  Turnzeitung  and  Vereinsliederbuch. 

"  I  give  the  figures  on  the  authority  of  a  correspondent  in  the 
Jewish  Chronicle,  London,  Aug.  9,  1912,  p.  11. 

4  Protokoll  des  Neunten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  239. 

6  Protokoll  des  Siebenten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  71. 

226 


pp-  154-167] 


NOTES 


6  e.  g.,  Palastina  Handelsgesellschaft,  Palestine  Land  Develop¬ 
ment  Company,  German-Levant  Wool  Company,  Oelbaumspende, 
Siedlungsgenossenschaft  (according  to  the  plan  of  Doctor  Franz 
Oppenheimer) . 

7  Especially  during  the  years  1909  and  1910. 

8  Carmel.  The  paper  has  since  ceased  publication.  It  is  signifi¬ 
cant  that  the  author  of  Le  reveil  de  la  nation  arabe  (Paris,  1905), 
Negib  Azoury,  had  in  preparation  a  work  entitled  Le  peril  juif 
universel. 

9  And  by  the  editor  of  the  leading  Judeo-Spanish  weekly  in 
Turkey.  See,  inter  alia,  Die  Welt,  xvi.  139. 

10  See  the  issues  of  the  Times  (London),  July  n,  12,  13;  Aug. 
3,  15,  31,  1911.  The  editor  of  the  Vienna  newspaper  Die  Zeit  was 
evidently  privy  to  the  attack. 

11  See  the  Constantinople  daily  paper  Stamboul,  1911,  nos.  52,  54, 
56,  91,  115,  267,  etc. 

12  Autoemancipation,  2d  ed.,  p.  28. 

13  See  Sapir,  Der  Zionismus,  p.  107. 

“Protokoll  des  Ersten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  2d  ed.,  p.  18;  Eng¬ 
lish  in  Jewish  Chronicle,  Sept.  3,  1897,  p.  n. 

16  Protokoll  des  Dritten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  6 ;  English 
in  Jewish  Chronicle,  Aug.  18,  1899,  p.  12. 

16  Protokoll  des  Siebenten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  25 ;  English 
in  Jewish  Chronicle,  Aug.  4,  1905,  p.  16;  The  Maccabaean,  ix.  88. 

17  Protokoll  des  Achten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  p.  9 ;  English  in 
Jewish  Chronicle,  Aug.  16,  1907,  p.  16. 

Chapter  VII 

SOME  PHASES  OF  ZIONISTIC  THEORY 
(pp.  165-180) 

1  Comp,  the  differing  resolutions  on  anti-militarism  proposed  by 
the  Germans  and  the  French  at  the  International  Socialist  Con¬ 
gress  of  Stuttgart  in  1907  in  the  official  Report,  p.  404,  and 
Vorwarts  for  April  26,  1907,  for  pronouncements  in  the  Reichstag. 

227 


NOTES 


[pp.  167-181 


'''Manifesto  of  the  Communist  Party,  Chicago,  n.  d.,  p.  41. 

3  Jewish  Chronicle,  June  26,  1903,  p.  10. 

4  ibidem,  Dec.  22,  p.  29;  Dec.  29,  p.  14. 

6  The  theories  of  the  Poale  Zion  are  well  set  forth  in  Protokoll 
des  Achten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  pp.  305  et  seq.  Comp,  also 
Pasmanik,  Die  Theorie  des  Poale  Zion,  Berlin,  n.  d.  As  an 
offshoot  might  be  mentioned  the  Ha-Poel  ha-Zai’r,  an  organization 
of  workingmen  in  Russia  and  Palestine,  wrho  are  perhaps  more 
Zionistic  in  their  tendency  than  the  Poale  Zion. 

6  See  Oppenheimer,  Die  Siedlungsgenossenschaft,  Leipzig,  1896; 
Landliche  Kolonisation  in  Palastina,  in  Die  Welt,  xiii.  913  et  seq. 
A  fund  of  more  than  100,000  francs  has  been  subscribed  in  order 
to  carry  out  the  project  of  a  co-operative  settlement. 

7  Protokoll  des  Achten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  pp.  234-328. 
Protokoll  des  Neunten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  pp.  195  et  seq., 

509. 

“Situated  in  Galilee;  see  Bericht  des  Actions-Comites  ...  an 
den  Zehnten  Kongress,  p.  42. 

10 1  have  the  quotation  from  The  Bund,  published  by  the  Central 
Verband  of  the  Bund  in  America,  New  York,  1905  (?),  p.  9. 
See  also  Die  Tatigkeit  des  Allgem.  jiidischen  Arbeiterbundes, 
Geneva,  1904,  pp.  23  et  seq.;  Sara  Rabinowitsch,  Die  Organisa- 
tionen  des  jiidischen  Proletariats,  1903,  passim;  Jewish  Chronicle, 
Jan.  13,  1905,  p.  24;  Die  Welt,  x.  no.  34,  p.  6. 

11  Protokoll,  etc.,  p.  222. 

12  See  Die  Welt,  xv.  953. 

Chapter  VIII 

AHAD  HA-AM  AND  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  JEWISH 

HISTORY 

(pp.  181-197) 

1  Preussische  Jahrbiicher,  xliv.  572  et  seq.;  Herr  Graetz  und 
sein  Judenthum,  in  Deutsche  Kampfe,  Neue  Folge,  1896,  p.  37. 

2  He  speaks  of  the  “  talmudistische  Geschichtsschreiberei  von 

228 


pp-  183-197] 


NOTES 


C-raetz,”  Auch  ein  Wort  fiber  unser  Judenthum,  3er  Abdruck, 
Berlin,  1880,  p.  6;  reprinted  in  Reden  und  Aufsatze,  Berlin,  1905, 
pp.  410  et  seq.  See  also  the  Memoir  prefixed  to  the  Index  volume 
of  Graetz,  History,  in  the  English  translation,  p.  77. 

3  See  the  preface  to  the  first  edition,  p.  x.,  and  the  last  chapter, 
entitled  Die  Gegenwart. 

4  Coup  d’oeil  sur  1’histoire  du  peuple  juif,  Paris,  1881;  reprinted 
in  his  Les  prophetes  d'Israel,  Paris,  1892,  pp.  153  et  seq.;  transl. 
into  German  by  J.  Singer,  Die  Philosophic  der  Gesch.  des  jiid. 
Volkes,  Vienna,  1884;  and  into  English  by  Helen  B.  Jastrow,  in 
Selected  Essays  of  James  Darmesteter,  Boston,  1895,  pp.  241  et  seq. 
It  is  singular  that  this  treatise,  the  most  Jewish  of  all  his  writings, 
is  not  even  mentioned  in  the  article  on  him  contributed  by  his 
wife  to  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  iv.  444. 

B  loc.  cit.,  p.  243. 

6  loc.  cit.,  p.  275. 

7  Chto  Takoe  Yevreiskaya  Istoria,  in  Voskhod,  1893,  pp.  9  et 
seq.;  German  transl.,  Die  jtidische  Geschichte  .  .  .  autorisierte 
Uebersetzung  von  I.  F.,  Berlin,  1893;  English  transl.,  Jewish  His¬ 
tory,  Phila.,  1903.  Comp.  Israel  Friedlaender,  Dubnow’s  Theory 
of  Jewish  Nationalism,  in  The  Maccabaean,  viii.  243  et  seq. 

8  See,  e.  g.,  Die  Welt,  vii.  no.  1,  p.  1 ;  xi.  1317. 

9  See  the  translation  of  an  article  on  the  subject  that  appeared 
in  Der  Jude,  in  Die  Welt,  v.  30  and  31. 

10  Selected  Essays  by  Ahad  ha-Am,  transl.  by  Leon  •  Simon, 
Phila.,  1912,  p.  289. 

11  ibidem,  p.  295. 

13  See  above,  chap,  iv.,  note  8. 

13  Protokoll  des  Ersten  Zionisten-Kongresses,  2d  ed.,  1911,  p. 
208. 

14  Selected  Essays,  p.  300. 

15  ibidem,  p.  123. 


229 


NOTES 


[pp.  206-210 


Chapter  IX 

ZIONISM  AND  THE  WESTERN  JEWS 
(pp.  198-216) 

1  Parerga  und  Paralipomena,  Berlin,  1851,  ii.  223:  “Den 
vernunftigen  Juden,  welcher,  alte  Fabeln,  Flausen  und  Vorurtheile 
aufgebend,  durch  die  Taufe  aus  einer  Genossenschaft  heraustritt, 
die  ihm  weder  Ehre  noch  Vortheil  bringt  (wenn  auch  in  Aus- 
nahmsfalle  Letzteres  vorkommt),  muss  ich  durchaus  loben,  selbst 
wenn  es  ihm  mit  dem  christlichen  Glauben  kein  grosser  Ernst 
seyn  sollte.” 

2  Von  Hartmann,  though  against  any  proselytizing  on  the  part 
of  Christians,  thinks  it  a  pity  that  certain  classes  of  Jews  in 
Germany  have  ceased  to  have  their  children  baptized.  See  Das 
Judenthum  in  Gegenwart  und  Zukunft,  1885,  p.  37. 

3  Auch  ein  Wort  iiber  unser  Judenthum,  3d  ed.,  Berlin,  1880,  p. 
15:  “  Ausserhalb  dieser  Schranken  [i.  e.,  des  Christenthums]  zu 
bleiben  und  innerhalb  der  Nation  zu  stehen  ist  moglich,  aber 
schwer  und  gefahrvoll.  .  .  .  Aber  es  ist  eine  notorische  Thatsache 
dass  eine  grosse  Anzahl  von  Juden  nicht  durch  Gewissensbedenken 
vom  Uebertritt  abgehalten  wird.  Sondern  lediglich  durch  ganz 
andere  Gefiihle,  die  ich  begreifen,  aber  nicht  billigen  kann.” 
Comp,  also  von  Treitschke,  Deutsche  Kampfe,  Neue  Folge,  Leip¬ 
zig,  1896,  pp.  37,  45. 

4  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  26,  1900,  p.  21. 

5  See  Strassburger  Post,  Unterhaltungsblatt,  Jan.  6,  1907.  It  is 
no  wonder  that  Noldeke  is  unfriendly  to  Zionist  aspirations.  See 
his  article,  Semitic  Languages,  in  Enycl.  Brit,  xi  ed.  p.  622b. 

G  Die  Erlosung  des  Judenthums,  vol.  cii,  1900,  pp.  131-140. 

7  See  Actes  et  conferences  de  la  Societe  des  Etudes  Juives,  1887, 
p.  cxxxii. 

8  At  Richmond;  see  Twenty-fifth  Annual  Report,  p.  403,  and 
American  Hebrew,  New  York,  Jan.  26,  1912,  p.  384. 

280 


pp.  213-216] 


NOTES 


9  In  this  connection  the  correspondence  between  the  Zionist 
Actions  Comite  and  the  president  of  the  Alliance  Israelite  in 
reference  to  combined  action  is  most  instructive.  See  Die  Welt, 
xv.  334  et  seq. 

10  See  Spectator,  London,  Oct.  6,  1906,  p.  478. 


231 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The  literature  on  Zionism  is  very  extensive,  and  is  scattered  in  a 
large  number  of  general  and  special  periodicals.  A  Bibliography 
in  Russian  has  been  published  by  Belkowsky,  Ukazatel  literaturi 
o  Sionisme,  St.  Petersburg,  1903.  A  Bibliography  of  Hebrew 
publications  on  the  subject  has  been  printed  by  William  Zeitlin, 
Bibliotheca  Sionista,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Hebraische  Bibliographic, 
xii.  52  et  seq.,  and  has  been  issued  in  the  form  of  a  reprint. 

A  general  history  of  the  movement  has  been  attempted  in  the 
Jewish  Encyclopedia  and  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica;  in  a 
shorter  form  also  in  the  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia.  A  good 
reference  work,  alphabetically  arranged,  is  the  Zionistisches  A-B-C 
Buch,  herausgegeben  ....  von  der  Zionistischen  Vereinigung 
fur  Deutschland,  Berlin,  1908.  A  history  of  Zionism  (but  only 
down  to  1903)  has  been  attempted  by  J.  B.  Sapir,  Der  Zionismus 
.  .  .  .  autorisierte  Uebersetzung  von  A.  Benjamin,  Briinn,  1903. 
For  Russia,  see  E.  Deinard,  Dibre  ha-Yamim  le-Ziyyon  be-Russia, 
2  parts,  Kearney  (N.  J.),  1904.  The  most  trustworthy  sources  are 
the  files  of  the  official  Zionist  publication  Die  Welt  (since  1897)  ; 
and  the  “  Protokolls  ”  of  the  ten  Congresses,  an  index  to  which 
has  been  published  by  Hugo  Schachtel,  Register  zu  den  Protokollen 
der  Zionisten-Kongresse  i-vi.,  Berlin,  1905.  A  collection  of  Essays 
on  a  variety  of  subjects  connected  with  the  Zionist  movement  will 
be  found  in  Die  Stimme  der  Wahrheit,  ed.  E.  Nossig,  Berlin, 
1905,  and  in  the  various  brochures  published  by  the  Federation  of 
American  Zionists.  Of  the  rest  of  the  literature  only  a  few  titles 
can  be  mentioned : 

Herzl,  Theodor,  Gesammelte  zionistische  Schriften,  2  vols., 
Jiidischer  Verlag,  Berlin,  1905. 

Nordau,  Max,  Zionistische  Schriften,  Koln,  1909. 

Hess,  Moses,  Judische  Schriften,  herausgegeben  von  Th.  Zlocisti, 
Berlin,  1905. 


233 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Pinsker,  Leo,  Autoemancipation,  2d  ed.,  Briinn,  1903. 
Nawratzki,  Curt,  Die  jiidische  Kolonisation  Palastinas,  Munich, 
1914. 

Neufeld,  A.,  Der  Versuch  einer  Bibliographic  fur  die  Zwecke 
der  wirtschaftlichen  Erschliessung  Palastinas,  Vienna,  1901. 

Zionist  Work  in  Palestine,  by  various  authorities,  ed.  by 
Israel  Cohen,  London,  1911. 

Heman,  F.,  Das  Erwachen  der  jiidischen  Nation,  Basel,  1897. 
Jaffe,  Max,  Die  nationale  Wiedergeburt  der  Juden,  Berlin,  1897. 
Kronberger,  Emil,  Zionisten  und  Christen,  Leipzig,  1900. 
Zangwill,  Israel,  Zionism,  in  Lippincott’s  Monthly  Magazine, 
October,  1899. 

Philippson,  M.,  Neueste  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes,  vol.  ii. 


234 


INDEX 


Abdul  Hamid,  Sultan,  in  com¬ 
munication  with  Herzl,  93; 
Turkey  under,  117;  Herzl’s 
negotiations  with,  without  re¬ 
sult,  118-119,  128;  granting 

of  Constitution  by,  156;  al¬ 
luded  to,  163. 

Actions  Committee.  See  Central 
Committee. 

Adler,  Felix,  promoter  of  a  uni- 
versalistic  movement,  26. 

Adler,  Samuel,  and  the  Jewish 
law,  106. 

Africa,  the  Jews  of,  and  Napoleon’s 
Jewish  nationalist  plan,  39. 

Agricultural  colonies  in  Palestine, 
76-77;  suffering  in,  77;  under 
the  Jewish  Colonization  Asso¬ 
ciation,  81;  opposed  by  the 
Germans,  158.  See  also  Pales¬ 
tine,  the  colonization  of. 

Ahad  ha-Am  (Asher  Ginzberg), 
criticises  the  Chovevi  Zion 
movement,  74-75;  adherents  of, 
75;  founds  a  society,  75-76; 
insists  upon  understanding 
with  Constantinople,  16 1;  the 
Democratic  Fraction  follower 
of,  168;  a  student  of  philoso¬ 
phy,  188;  in  sympathy  with  the 
Jewish  people,  188;  theory  of, 
on  Jewish  unrest,  189;  on  Jew¬ 
ish  national  feeling,  189  et 
seq.;  on  Palestine  as  a  cul¬ 
tural  center,  190  et  seq.;  op¬ 
poses  Zionism,  191-192,  195- 

197;  advocates  revival  of 
Hebrew,  193,  194;  criticism 

of,  195-197. 


Ahad  ha-Amism,  a  phase  of  Zionist 
thought,  180.  See  Ahad  ha- 
Am. 

Ahiasaf,  publication  society,  a 
Bene  Mosheh  creation,  76. 

Akademische  Lesehalle,  Berlin,  ex¬ 
cludes  Jews,  148. 

Albanians,  the,  in  Turkey,  159. 

Alliance  Israelite  Universelle,  the, 
refuses  to  interest  itself  in 
Palestine  colonization,  42;  the 
founders  of,  50;  motives  un¬ 
derlying  foundation  of,  51; 
founds  the  Mikweh  Israel 
Agricultural  School,  54;  merits 
and  demerits  of,  54;  part  as¬ 
signed  to,  by  Pinsker,  65; 
purely  philanthropic,  79;  hos¬ 
tile  to  Zionism,  95;  fails  to 
organize  international  Jewry, 
109;  to  be  represented  in  or¬ 
ganization  proposed  at  Pales¬ 
tine  Congress,  133;  Zangwill 
on,  139;  exerts  influence 
against  Zionism,  159-160;  ex¬ 
pected  to  be  an  organizing 
force,  214. 

Allianz,  the,  of  Vienna,  part  as¬ 
signed  to,  by  Pinsker,  65;  hos¬ 
tile  to  Zionism,  95. 

Alroy,  nationalist  tendencies  in 
Disraeli’s,  40;  quotation  from, 
40. 

Am  Olarn,  work  by  Perez  Smo- 
lenskin,  34. 

America,  Jewish  emigration  to,  de¬ 
precated  by  Lilienblum,  67-68. 
See  also  United  States. 


235 


INDEX 


American  Judaism,  205. 

Ancona,  alluded  to,  203. 

Anglo-Egyptian  Government,  the, 
and  Jewish  colonization  of  El- 
Arish,  121-122. 

Anglo-Jewish  Association,  the,  re¬ 
fuses  to  interest  itself  in  Pal¬ 
estine  colonization,  42;  part 
assigned  to,  by  Pinsker,  65. 

Anglo-Levantine  Company,  the,  at 
Constantinople,  158. 

Angola,  Jews  invited  to  settle  in, 
125;  colonization  contemplated 
in,  by  the  Ito,  141. 

Anti-Semitism,  modern,  originated 
by  Bismarck,  26-27;  how  com¬ 
bated,  27-28;  not  founded  on 
theoretical  considerations,  27; 
detrimental  effect  of,  on  Jews, 
30;  strikes  at  the  social  posi¬ 
tion  of  Jews,  60;  causes  po¬ 
groms  in  Russia,  60-61;  causes 
economic  distress  in  Galicia, 
61;  effect  of,  on  Jews  in  gen¬ 
eral,  61;  self-emancipation 
true  answer  to,  64;  Herzl  sen¬ 
sitive  to,  85;  England  not  af¬ 
fected  by,  86;  Herzl’s  reply  to, 
88;  an  increasing  menace,  89; 
calls  Jews  strangers,  101;  ram¬ 
pant  in  Vienna,  147;  at  the 
German  universities,  148;  di¬ 
rected  against  Jewish  histo¬ 
rians,  18 1 ;  ravages  of,  205. 

Arab  dominion,  in  Palestine,  hos¬ 
tile  to  Jews,  48. 

Arabs,  the,  anti-Jewish  campaign 
of,  158-159;  in  Turkey,  159; 
tillers  of  the  soil  in  Palestine, 
169. 

Argentina,  alluded  to,  91. 

Armenian  massacres,  the,  alluded 
to,  93- 

Art,  in  Palestine,  194. 


Arukat  Bat  Ammi,  work  by  Riilf, 
70;  forerunner  of  the  Juden- 
staat,  89. 

Asher  ben  Yehiel,  alluded  to,  201. 

Ashkenazim,  the,  use  Judeo-Ger- 
man,  57;  alluded  to,  201. 

Asia,  the  Jews  of,  and  Napoleon’s 
Jewish  nationalist  plan,  39. 

Assimilation,  Levanda  on,  69. 

Association  of  Rabbis  in  Germany, 
the,  on  Zionism,  103-104. 

Athlit,  alluded  to,  155. 

Australia,  colonization  in,  contem¬ 
plated  by  the  Ito,  141. 

Austria,  alluded  to,  59;  the  Cho- 
vevi  Zion  movement  in,  72; 
home  of  Herzl,  84;  German, 
originates  the  Jewish  national¬ 
ist  university  movement,  147; 
students’  societies  in,  147-148. 

Austria,  the  Jews  of,  harmful  ef¬ 
fect  of  anti-Semitism  on,  30; 
anti-Semitism  strikes  at  social 
position  of,  60;  in  Austrian 
politics,  144-145. 

Austria-Hungary,  lack  of  racial 
unity  in,  210-211. 

Autoemancipation,  work  by  Leo 
Pinsker,  64-66;  influences  Lili- 
enblum,  67;  influences  Riilf, 
70;  forerunner  of  Herzl’s 
Judenstaat,  82,  83,  89;  com¬ 
pared  with  Herzl’s  Judenstaat, 
83;  text-book  of  the  Kadimah, 
147. 

Avignon,  alluded  to,  203. 

Babylon,  alluded  to,  no. 

Babylonian  Jews,  the,  alluded  to, 
201. 

Balkan  states,  the,  manifest  na¬ 
tional  consciousness,  24;  in  the 
Berlin  Conference,  60.. 

Bari,  alluded  to,  203. 


236 


INDEX 


Basel,  meeting  place  of  the  First 
Zionist  Congress,  113,  114. 

Basel  Program,  the,  114-116;  de¬ 
mands  a  home  for  the  Jews, 
126;  and  colonization  outside 
of  Palestine,  135;  criticised  by 
Ahad  ha-Am,  192. 

Bayazid  II,  Sultan,  invites  the 
Jews  to  settle  in  Turkey,  125. 

Beirut,  alluded  to,  118. 

Belief,  the  Jewish,  and  the  Re¬ 
formers,  22. 

Bene  Mosheh,  the,  society  founded 
by  Ahad  ha-Am,  75-76;  daugh¬ 
ter  institutions  of,  76;  alluded 
to,  196. 

Benedictus  Levita,  advises  Jews  to 
educate  children  as  Christians, 
206. 

Bergson,  quoted,  14. 

Berlin,  the  Jews  of,  refuse  to  be 
interested  in  Palestine  coloni¬ 
zation,  42;  Orthodox  Jews  of, 
favorable  to  colonization  of 
Palestine,  70-71;  alluded  to, 
72;  Jewish  students’  societies 
at,  148,  149;  the  seat  of  the 
Actions  Committee,  151. 

Berlin  Conference,  the,  and  the 
Jews  of  the  Balkan  states,  60. 

Bernstein,  a  Jew  and  a  socialist, 
167. 

Bezalel  School,  the,  at  Jerusalem, 
supported  by  Palestine  senti¬ 
ment,  155;  for  arts,  194. 

Bielitz,  Jewish  students’  society  at, 
148. 

Birnbaum,  Nathan,  founds  the 
Kadimah  at  Vienna,  86. 

Bismarck,  author  of  modern  anti- 
Semitism,  26-27;  supposed  to 
entertain  Jewish  nationalist 
plans,  39*40. 

Blood  accusation.  See  Damascus. 


Bnei  Zion  associations,  connected 
with  the  Chovevi  Zion  move¬ 
ment,  72. 

Boer  War,  the,  alluded  to,  123. 
Boers,  the,  remain  Dutchmen,  212. 
Bonn,  Jewish  students’  societies  at, 
148. 

Bosnia,  alluded  to,  157. 

Breslau,  Jewish  students’  society 
at,  148;  first  official  Zionist 
students’  society  at,  149. 
British  citizenship,  and  the  Boers, 
212. 

British  Government,  the,  good-will 
of,  valued  by  Herzl,  122. 
Brooks,  Sydney,  on  the  New  Ire¬ 
land,  221. 

Briinn,  Jewish  students’  society  at, 
148. 

Brussels  Conference,  the,  unsuc¬ 
cessful  as  an  organizing 
agency,  2 14-2 15. 

Buffalo,  New  York,  alluded  to,  39. 
Bulgaria,  alluded  to,  157. 
Bulgarian,  the  revival  of,  56,  57. 
Bulgarians,  the,  in  Turkey,  159. 
Bund  judischer  Akademiker,  fed¬ 
eration  of  Jewish  students’ 
societies,  149. 

Bund  judischer  Jugendvereine,  fed¬ 
eration  of  juvenile  societies, 
150. 

Bund  judischer  Korporationen, 
federation  of  Jewish  students’ 
societies,  149. 

Bund,  the,  Jewish  nationalistic 
sentiment  in,  172;  why  formed 
as  a  Jewish  section  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  proletarian  movement, 
173;  cherishes  the  Russian 
rather  than  the  Jewish  national 
•  ideal,  173;  refuses  to  assimi¬ 
late  completely,  173-174;  breaks 
with  the  Russian  Working¬ 
men’s  Democratic  Party,  174; 

237 


16 


INDEX 


recognizes  its  Jewish  national¬ 
ist  character,  175;  reproach  of, 
against  Zionism,  175;  capitu¬ 
lates  to  the  Democratic  Party, 
176. 

Cabalistic  activity,  attracts  settlers 
to  Palestine,  49. 

Cairo,  alluded  to,  121. 

Canada,  growth  of,  and  national 
consciousness,  24;  alluded  to, 
54,  91;  colonization  in,  con¬ 
templated  by  the  Ito,  141;  an 
example  of  racial  diversity, 
212. 

Carcassone,  alluded  to,  203. 

Carmel  Wine  Company,  the,  3 
Bene  Mosheh  creation,  76. 

Carpentras,  alluded  to,  203. 

Cassel,  Paulus  (Selig),  alluded  to, 
182. 

Castile,  alluded  to,  57. 

Center,  a,  value  of,  207. 

Central  Committee,  demonstration 
of  members  of,  against  East 
African  proposal,  131;  report 
to,  1 3 1 ;  Russian  members  of, 
meet  at  Kharkoff,  133;  seat  of, 
in  Berlin,  151. 

Central  Conference  of  American 
Rabbis,  the,  on  Zionism,  102. 

Ceremonial  law,  the  Jewish,  and 
the  Reformers,  21-22. 

Chamberlain,  Joseph,  and  a  Jewish 
settlement  in  East  Africa,  123. 

Charter,  a,  proposed  by  Herzl,  90. 

Charterism,  killed  by  the  Turkish 
Constitution,  157;  character¬ 
ized,  157. 

Chauvinism,  a  mark  of  the  new 
nationalism,  26. 

Chief  Rabbi,  the,  of  England,  with¬ 
out  power  religiously,  no. 

Chovevi  Zion  movement,  the, 
headed  by  Pinsker,  72;  spread 


of,  72;  attempt  to  federate 
societies  of,  72;  superseded  by 
Zionism,  73;  criticised  by 
Ahad  ha-Am,  74-751  influence 
of  the  Bene  Mosheh  on,  76; 
gives  impetus  to  agricultural 
settlement  in  Palestine,  77; 
groups  within,  78;  enlists  other 
societies  in  Palestine  coloniza¬ 
tion,  79;  not  known  to  Herzl, 
91;  in  Western  Europe,  hostile 
to  Zionism,  95;  and  Zionism, 
104;  opposed  by  Herzl,  116- 
1 1 7 ;  a  threat  to  Zionism  as  a 
national  movement,  156;  too 
practical,  196.  See  also  Odessa 
Committee;  Hibbat  Zion;  Pal¬ 
estine,  the  colonization  of; 
Palestinian  Zionism. 

Chovevi  Zionists,  the,  insist  upon 
Palestine  work,  119;  East  Afri¬ 
can  proposal  apt  to  alienate, 
127;  opposed  to  the  East  Afri¬ 
can  proposal,  129. 

Christ,  second  coming  of,  and 
Jewish  nationalism,  41. 
Christian  community,  a  universal, 
and  the  Roman  Church,  23; 
and  the  Jews,  25. 

Christian  dominion  in  Palestine, 
hostile  to  Jews,  48. 

Christian- Socialist  Party,  Jews 
naturally  barred  from,  168. 
Christianity,  conversions  to,  in 
Germany,  150;  conversion  to, 
advised  by  writers  and  histo¬ 
rians,  206. 

Chiistians,  German,  oppose  anti- 
Semitism,  27;  sympathizers 
with  Jewish  nationalism,  39-47* 
Cities,  influence  of  growth  of,  on 
Jewish  unity,  203. 

Citizenship,  and  religion  in  Rome, 
25;  not  coincident  with  racial 
unity,  210-212. 

238 


INDEX 


Claude,  character  in  play  by  Alex¬ 
andre  Dumas  fils,  42. 

Cohen,  Gustav,  influenced  by 
George  Eliot,  220. 

Cohen,  Hermann,  on  Palestine, 
217. 

Cohn,  Albert,  interested  in  the 
Jews  of  the  East,  50;  alluded 
to,  52. 

Collectors  of  alms,  link  between 
Palestine  and  the  Diaspora,  49. 

Cologne,  seat  of  Zionism,  145. 

Colonial  Trust.  See  Jewish  Colo¬ 
nial  Trust,  the. 

Colonization,  the,  of  Palestine. 
See  Palestine,  the  colonization 
of. 

Commandment,  developed  from 
custom,  71, 

Congress,  the  Zionist,  an  expres¬ 
sion  of  Pinsker’s  ideas,  66; 
indicates  organization,  108;  a 
Jewish  forum,  in;  ten  ses¬ 
sions  of,  held,  1 16;  parties  in, 
170  et  seq.;  theoretical  de¬ 
bates  in,  172. 

Congress,  the  Zionist  (First),  the 
beginning  of  Herzl’s  con¬ 
structive  policy,  93;  takes 
Zionism  out  of  the  sphere 
of  academic  discussion,  94; 
universal  character  of,  112- 
1 1 3 ;  meets  in  Basel,  113- 
1 1 4 ;  opposition  to,  113-114; 
platform  adopted  by,  114;  ad¬ 
vocates  loyal  intercourse  with 
Turkey,  161;  society  for  the 
study  of  Hebrew  proposed  at, 
193. 

Congress,  the  Zionist  (Second), 
defines  attitude  of  movement 
towards  religion,  97;  debates 
on  organization  in,  172. 

Congress,  the  Zionist  (Third), 
frowns  upon  Cyprus  coloniza¬ 


tion,  120;  favors  loyal  inter¬ 
course  with  Turkey,  162. 
Congress,  the  Zionist  (Fifth),  al¬ 
luded  to,  168;  Democratic 
Fraction  formed  at,  176. 
Congress,  the  Zionist  (Sixth),  East 
African  proposal  at,  126  et 
seq.,  128-131;  an  opposition 
party  formed  in,  132  et  seq. 
Congress,  the  Zionist  (Seventh), 
resolutions  of,  accepted  by  the 
Odessa  Committee  of  the  Cho- 
vevi  Zion,  73;  address  on 
Herzl  at,  92;  the  East  African 
proposal  before,  135  et  seq.; 
Palestinian  Zionism  at,  154; 
favors  loyal  intercourse  with 
Turkey,  162-163. 

Congress,  the  Zionist  (Eighth), 
favors  loyal  intercourse  with 
Turkey,  163. 

Congress,  the  Zionist  (Ninth), 
accepts  theories  of  the  Poale 
Zion,  170. 

Congress,  the  Zionist  (Tenth),  dis¬ 
cusses  emigration,  142;  Pales¬ 
tinian  Zionism  victorious  at, 
154;  admits  groupings  based 
on  theory,  172;  Mizrachi  de¬ 
mands  at,  178,  179. 

Coningsby,  nationalist  tendencies 
in  Disraeli’s,  40. 

Consciousness,  the  Jewish,  dead¬ 
ened  in  modern  times,  205. 
Conservatives,  the,  a  party  in 
Great  Britain,  171. 
Constantinople,  alluded  to,  12 1, 
158;  the  Jews  of,  ultra-Turkish 
in  sympathy,  159. 

Conversion  to  Christianity,  advised 
by  writers  and  historians,  206. 
Conversions  to  Christianity,  in 
Germany,  150. 

Cornwall,  dialect  of,  extinct,  57. 

239 


INDEX 


Cosmopolitanism,  supposed  guar¬ 
antee  for  welfare  of  Jews,  62. 
See  also  Internationalism. 

Cremieux,  Adolphe,  intervenes  in 
the  Damascus  blood  accusa¬ 
tion,  49-50;  one  of  the  found¬ 
ers  of  the  Alliance  Israelite 
Universelle,  50;  example  of  a 
modern  Jewish  statesman,  92. 

Cretans,  the,  alluded  to,  157. 

Croats,  in  Austria-Hungary,  21 1. 

Cromer,  Earl  of,  on  Rome  and  the 
Jews,  218. 

Culture,  Jewish,  in  Palestine,  Ahad 
ha-Am  on,  190  et  seq. 

Custom,  developed  into  command¬ 
ment,  71. 

Cymric,  the  revival  of,  56-57. 

Cyprus,  stepping-stone  to  Palestine 
colonization,  120;  for  Jewish 
colonization,  120,  121. 

Cyrenaica,  colonization  in,  contem¬ 
plated  by  the  Ito,  141. 

Czechs,  in  Germany  and  Austria- 
Hungary,  21 1. 

Czernowitz,  Jewish  students’  so¬ 
ciety  at,  148. 

Pahlemia.  See  Freie  Verbindung 
Dahlemia. 

Damascus,  center  of  Maronite 
massacres,  50. 

Damascus  blood  accusation,  the, 
influences  Moses  Hess,  36-37; 
history  of,  49-50. 

Danes,  in  Germany,  21 1. 

Daniel,  character  in  play  by  Alex¬ 
andre  Dumas  fils,  42. 

Daniel  Deronda,  novel  by  George 
Eliot,  on  Jewish  nationalism, 
43*45  5  Jewish  opinions  of,  46- 
47- 

Darmesteter,  James,  a  philosophy 
of  Jewish  history  by,  184-186; 
how  disqualified  for  his  task, 


184;  quotation  from  work  of, 
185;  personal  note  lacking  in 
work  of,  185-186;  alluded  to, 
188. 

Darmstadt,  Jewish  students’  so¬ 
cieties  at,  148. 

Delamere,  Lord,  telegram  of,  on 
East  African  proposal,  131. 
Democracy,  cherished  by  Jews, 
109-1 11. 

Democratic  Fraction,  the,  of  the 
Congress,  opposed  to  the  East 
African  proposal,  129;  gives 
rise  to  the  Poale  Zion  party, 
168;  follower  of  Ahad  ha-Am, 
168;  represented  at  the  Minsk 
Congress,  168;  merged  into 
the  Poale  Zion,  168;  demands 
of,  accepted  by  official  Zion¬ 
ism,  170;  formation  of,  176; 
effect  of,  176;  and  the  Miz- 
rachi,  177. 

Derek  ha-Hayyim,  article  by  Ahad 
ha-Am,  74-75. 

Derishat  Ziyyon,  pamphlet,  by 
Hirsch  Kalischer,  53-54. 

“  Deutsche  Staatsbiirger  judischen 
Glaubens,”  205. 

Diaspora,  the.  See  Dispersion,  the 
Jewish. 

Discoveries,  and  internationalism, 
24. 

Dispersion,  the  Jewish,  as  viewed 
by  the  Reformers,  22-23;  and 
Jerusalem,  30;  held  by  Re¬ 
form  to  be  providential,  99 ; 
favored  by  the  Ito  movement, 
142;  to  be  feared,  215-216. 
Disraeli,  as  a  Jewish  nationalist, 
40;  example  of  a  modern  Jew¬ 
ish  statesman,  92. 

Djavid  Bey,  said  to  be  tool  of  Jews, 
160;  ignorant  of  Zionism,  161. 
Donmeh,  follower  of  Sabbatai 
Zebi,  160. 

240 


INDEX 


Dreyfus  affair,  the,  Herzl  in  Paris 
during,  85. 

Druses,  the,  massacre  Maronite 
Christians,  50. 

Dubnow,  Simon,  a  philosophy  of 
Jewish  history  by,  186- 188; 
qualifications  of,  for  task,  186; 
lays  stress  on  universal  aspects 
of  Jewish  history,  186-187; 
message  of,  187-188;  alluded 
to,  188. 

Dumas,  Alexandre,  fils,  on  Jewish 
nationalism,  41-42. 

Dunant,  Henry,  founder  of  the 
Red  Cross,  sympathizer  with 
Jewish  nationalism,  42-43. 

East  African  proposal,  the,  com¬ 
pared  with  Noah’s,  39;  how 
originated,  123-124;  an  epoch 
in  Jewish  history,  124- 125; 
tempting  features  of,  125;  ac¬ 
ceptable  terms  of,  defined  by 
Herzl,  125-126;  made  on  the 
eve  of  the  Sixth  Congress,  126; 
apt  to  alienate  the  Chovevi 
Zionists,  127;  as  viewed  by 
Herzl,  127-128;  attitude  of  the 
Jewish  Colonization  Associa¬ 
tion  toward,  128;  presented  to 
the  Congress  by  Herzl,  128- 
129;  opposition  to,  129,  130- 
131,  131-132;  commission  of 
inquiry  on,  129-130,  131;  re¬ 
port  on,  1 3 1 ;  produces  lines  of 
cleavage  in  the  Congress,  132 
et  seq.;  before  the  Seventh 
Zionist  Congress,  135  et  seq.; 
causes  split  in  Zionism,  136- 
137- 

East,  the  Jews  of  the,  interest 
taken  in,  by  the  Jews  of 
Europe,  50;  Spanish  used  in 
1  the  Semitic,  57.  See  also 

Eastern  Jews. 


Eastern  Europe,  ascendancy  of 
Judeo-German  in,  57-58. 

Eastern  Jews,  exodus  of,  30-31;  in¬ 
fluence  Western  Jews,  31-34; 
compared  with  Western  Jews, 
77-78.  See  also  East. 

Economic  questions,  parties  formed 
on  the  basis  of,  171  et  seq. 

Egypt,  alluded  to,  54. 

Ehrenpreis,  Doctor,  proposes  so¬ 
ciety  for  study  of  Hebrew, 
193- 

El-Arish,  proposed  Jewish  coloniza¬ 
tion  of,  120-122,  123. 

Eliot,  George,  on  Jewish  national¬ 
ism,  43-47;  Zangwill  on,  138; 
influences  Gustav  Cohen,  220. 

Emancipation,  political,  and  West¬ 
ern  Jews,  19-20;  and  the  Re¬ 
formers,  20;  Moses  Hess  on, 
37;  does  not  include  social 
emancipation,  64;  Zionism  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  incongruous  with, 
198-199;  cost  of,  209. 

Emanuel,  Temple,  New  York,  al¬ 
luded  to,  106. 

Emigration  regulated  by  the  Ito 
movement,  141;  at  the  Tenth 
Zionist  Congress,  142. 

Emunah  Yesharah,  work  by  Kali- 
scher,  52-53. 

Encyclopedists,  the  French,  favor 
internationalism,  24. 

Engels.  See  Marx  and  Engels. 

England,  alluded  to,  59,  204;  the 
Chovevi  Zion  movement  in, 
72 ;  not  affected  by  anti- 
Semitism,  86;  Herzl  looks  to 
Jews  of,  for  support,  87;  and 
Cyprus,  120.  See  also  Great 
Britain;  London. 

Eternal  People,  An,  work  by  Perez 
Smolenskin,  34. 

Exilarch,  lay  head  of  the  Jewish 
community  in  Babylon,  no. 


241 


INDEX 


Extremism,  a  characteristic  of  the 
prophets,  192. 

Ezra  Verein,  the,  of  Berlin,  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Chovevi  Zion 
movement,  72;  religious  in 
sentiment,  79;  to  be  repre¬ 
sented  in  organization  pro¬ 
posed  at  Palestine  Congress, 
133- 

Florence,  alluded  to,  203. 

France,  alluded  to,  59,  203. 

Franck,  Adolphe,  on  Jerusalem, 
217. 

Frankfort  Conference,  the,  unsuc¬ 
cessful  as  an  organizing 
agency,  2 14-2 15. 

Frankfort-on-the-Main,  Orthodox 
Jews  of,  favorable  to  coloniza¬ 
tion  of  Palestine,  70-71;  Sen¬ 
ate  of,  103. 

Frankfort-on-the-Oder,  Palestine 
colonization  society  formed  at, 
55- 

Freiburg,  Jewish  students’  societies 
at,  148. 

Freie  Verbindung  Dahlemia,  Ber¬ 
lin  students’  society,  149. 

French,  the,  in  Canada,  212. 

Friedlander,  M.,  on  Zionism,  98. 

Gaelic,  the  revival  of,  56. 

Galicia,  Jews  from,  settle  in  Pales¬ 
tine,  49. 

Galicia,  the  Jews  of,  effect  of  anti- 
Semitism  on,  61;  affected  by 
anti-Semitism,  27. 

Galician  Jewish  students,  in  Vien¬ 
na,  147. 

Galilee,  alluded  to,  76;  Jews  in, 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  49. 

Galveston,  emigration  directed  to, 
by  the  Ito  movement,  141. 

Geiger,  Abraham,  and  the  Jewish 
law,  106. 


Geiger,  Ludwig,  on  Zionism,  102, 
103. 

General  Jewish  Workingmen’s 
Union  of  Russia  and  Poland. 
See  Bund,  the. 

Geneva  Convention,  the,  inspirer 
of,  42. 

German  patriotism,  and  Zionism, 
102;  leadership  of  Zionism, 

i$i. 

German  Empire,  the  renewed,  a 
manifestation  of  national  con¬ 
sciousness,  24. 

German  universities,  the,  and 
Zionism,  146  et  seq.;  nurture 
Jewish  idealism,  150-151. 

Germans,  in  Austria-Hungary,  21 1; 
the,  in  Palestine,  prejudiced 
against  Zionism,  158;  the,  in 
the  United  States,  21 1. 

Germany,  anti-Semitism  in,  27; 
alluded  to,  59,  204;  the  Cho¬ 
vevi  Zion  movement  in,  72; 
hostile  to  Zionism,  103;  ad¬ 
vantages  of,  as  seat  of  Zion¬ 
ism,  145-146;  Zionist  develop¬ 
ment  of,  146  et  seq.;  students’ 
societies  in,  148-150,  150-151; 
conversions  to  Christianity  in, 
150;  lack  of  racial  unity  in, 
210-21 1. 

Germany,  the  Jews  of,  harmful 
effect  of  anti-Semitism  on,  30; 
use  Teutonized  Hebrew,  56; 
anti-Semitism  strikes  at  social 
position  of,  60. 

Ginzberg,  Asher.  See  Ahad  ha- 
Am. 

Gordon,  Moses  Hess  influenced 
by,  37- 

Gotiesdienstliche  Vortrage,  work 
by  Zunz,  183. 

Graetz,  Heinrich,  historian,  in¬ 
fluenced  by  Moses  Hess,  38; 
quoted,  38;  history  of,  at- 


242 


INDEX 


tacked,  181-182;  alluded  to, 
182;  on  the  Reform  move¬ 
ment,  183. 

Grand  Island,  New  York,  a  refuge 
for  Jews,  38-39- 

Grand  Rabbin  de  France,  a  govern¬ 
ment  office,  no. 

Gratz,  Jewish  students’  society  at, 
148. 

Great  Britain,  interest  of,  in  a 
Jewish  state,  41;  party  lines 
in  Parliament  of,  171.  See 
also  England;  London. 

Greeks,  the,  in  Turkey,  159. 

Greenberg,  L.  J.,  and  the  East 
African  proposal,  123. 

Guas  Ngishu  Plateau,  territory 
concerned  in  the  East  African 
proposal,  131. 

Giidemann,  M.,  on  the  Judenstaat, 
97;  hostile  to  Zionism,  99-100; 
alluded  to,  182. 

Guttmacher,  Moses  Hess  influ¬ 
enced  by,  37. 

Gymnasium,  the  Hebrew,  at  Jaffa, 
supported  by  Palestine  senti¬ 
ment,  155;  grant  to,  opposed 
by  the  Mizrachi,  178,  179; 

faults  of,  194;  purpose  of,  194. 

Haftkine,  Doctor,  organizer  of  the 
Chovevi  Zion  movement,  72. 

Haifa,  alluded  to,  155,  158,  159. 

Hakam  Bashi,  spiritual  head  of 
Eastern  Jewish  communities, 
1 10. 

Kakki  ministry,  the,  in  Turkey, 
charged  with  Judaizing,  160. 

Plakki  Pasha,  displays  ignorance  of 
Zionism,  161. 

Halevi,  Jehudah,  quoted,  35. 

Ha-Meliz,  alluded  to,  74;  welcomes 
Zionism,  99. 

Ha-Poel  ha-Zair,  offshoot  of  the 
Poale  Zion,  228. 


Hartmann,  Eduard  von,  advises 
conversion  to  Christianity,  206. 

Ha-Shiloah,  magazine,  a  Bene 
Mosheh  creation,  76. 

Hasidism,  alluded  to,  no. 

Haskalah  movement,  the,  alluded 
to,  67. 

Hayyim  Gedaliah,  advocates  the 
purchase  of  Palestine,  67. 

Ila-Zefirah,  welcomes  Zionism,  99. 

Healing  of  My  People,  The,  work 
by  Riilf,  70. 

Plebraism,  prophetical,  Ahad  ha* 
Am  preacher  of,  192-193. 

Hebrew  language,  the,  in  Noah’s 
nationalist  scheme,  39;  Jewish 
nationalism  awakens  interest 
in,  55-59;  superseded  by  vari¬ 
ous  languages,  55-56,  57-58; 

official  and  literary  use  of,  56; 
development  of,  retarded,  56; 
secularization  of,  discounte¬ 
nanced,  58;  cultivated  by  Jew¬ 
ish  nationalists,  58-59;  culti¬ 
vated  in  Palestine,  59;  culti¬ 
vated  by  Jewish  students’  so¬ 
cieties,  148;  revival  of,  dis¬ 
cussed  at  the  First  Congress, 
193;  in  the  Middle  Ages,  203- 
204. 

Heidelberg,  alluded  to,  78. 

Hellenism,  in  relation  to  Judaism, 
29-30;  alluded  to,  202. 

Hellenists,  alluded  to,  103. 

Herzegovina,  alluded  to,  157. 

Herzfeld,  alluded  to,  182. 

Herzl,  Theodor,  how  qualified  as  a 
leader,  17-18;  death  of,  82, 
134-135;  forerunners  of,  82- 
83;  personality  of,  83,  84;  fol¬ 
lowers  of,  83-84;  education  of, 
84-85;  career  of,  85;  returns 
to  Vienna,  86;  looks  to  English 
Jews  for  assistance,  86-87;  and 
Zangwill,  87;  in  London,  87; 


243 


INDEX 


and  anti-Semitism,  88;  de¬ 
mands  formation  of  a  Society 
of  Jews  and  a  Jewish  Com¬ 
pany,  89-90;  a  practical  states¬ 
man,  90-91,  91-92;  why  suc¬ 
cessful  in  the  West,  91;  de¬ 
voted  to  the  Jewish  people,  92; 
Nordau  on,  92;  constructive 
policy  of,  93;  in  diplomatic  re¬ 
lations  with  the  Turkish  Sul¬ 
tan,  93-94,  156;  indifferent  to 
religious  sentiment,  96;  grows 
more  Palestinian  in  attitude, 
97,  115-116;  political  view  of, 
116-118;  negotiations  of,  with 
Turkey,  without  result,  118- 
1 1 9 ;  and  the  colonization  of 
El-Arish,  121;  values  good-will 
of  British  •  Government,  122; 
alluded  to,  124,  142;  on  the 
East  African  proposal,  125- 
126;  difficult  position  of,  126- 
127;  in  Russia,  126-127;  opin¬ 
ion  of,  on  East  African  pro¬ 
posal,  127-128;  presents  the 
East  African  proposal  to  the 
Congress,  128-129;  opposition 
to,  at  the  Kharkoff  Conference, 
133-134;  generosity  of,  135; 
effect  on  movement  of  death 
of,  1 43- 1 44;  hostility  to,  in 
Vienna,  145;  the  Kadimah 
first  to  join,  148;  doctrines  of, 
espoused  by  the  “  politicals,” 

1 51-152;  Ussischkin  antago¬ 
nizes,  153;  favors  loyal  inter¬ 
course  with  Turkey,  161-162; 
opposes  groupings  in  the  Con¬ 
gress  resting  upon  theory,  172; 
opposes  introduction  of  re¬ 
ligious  considerations  in  offi¬ 
cial  Zionist  work,  179;  on 
Judaism,  193. 

Hess,  Moses,  as  a  Jewish  national¬ 
ist,  36-38;  quoted,  36-37;  work 


by*  37-38 ;  on  political  emanci¬ 
pation,  37;  influences  Graetz, 
38;  acknowledges  indebtedness 
to  Plirsch  Kalischer,  53; 
Pinsker  in  agreement  with, 
63;  forerunner  of  Herzl,  89;  a 
Socialist,  168. 

Hibbat  Ziyyon,  Palestine  coloniza¬ 
tion  movement,  67;  finds  no 
response  in  Western  Europe, 
69;  espoused  by  Rulf,  69;  in 
Russia,  71-72;  the  program  of 
some  Russian  Zionists,  73; 
Ahad  ha-Am  seeks  to  enlarge 
idea  of,  74-75;  Ahad  ha-Am 
leader  in,  191.  See  also 
Chovevi  Zion;  Palestine,  the 
colonization  of. 

Hildesheimer,  Hirsch,  leader  of 
the  Ezra  Verein,  79. 

Hill,  Sir  Clement,  and  the  East 
African  proposal,  123-124,  126. 
Plindlipp,  Lord,  telegram  of,  on 
East  African  proposal,  131. 
Historians,  Jewish,  attacked,  181; 

the  task  of,  182-183. 

Hobebe  Zion.  See  Chovevi  Zion. 
Iloldheim,  Samuel,  and  the  Jewish 
law,  106. 

Holland,  alluded  to,  97. 
Hollingsworth,  Christian  sympa¬ 
thizer  with  Jewish  national¬ 
ism,  40-41. 

Holy  Land,  the.  See  Palestine. 
Hyde  Park,  London,  Kishineff  pro¬ 
test  meeting  at,  167. 

Immigration,  counteracts  ravages 
of  anti-Semitism,  205. 

India,  overland  route  to,  and  a 
Jewish  state  in  Palestine,  41. 
Indian  Ocean,  the,  boundary  of 
East  African  Protectorate,  123. 
Industrial  system  of  modern  times, 
the,  breaks  up  Jewish  unity, 
202  et  seq. 

244 


INDEX 


Inner  Actions  Committee.  See 
Central  Committee. 

International  Palestine  Society, 
founded  by  Henry  Dunant,  43. 

Internationalism,  and  the  Roman 
Church,  23-24;  at  the  end  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  24;  and  the 
Jews,  26;  supposed  guarantee 
for  welfare  of  Jews,  62;  and 
Socialism,  167.  See  also  Cos¬ 
mopolitanism. 

Ireland,  alluded  to,  56,  57. 

Ireland,  The  New,  Sydney  Brooks 
on,  221. 

Irish-Americans,  the,  nationalists, 
211-212. 

Irish  Party,  the,  in  Great  Britain, 

171. 

Italy,  protests  against  the  “  red 
ticket,”  xi8;  alluded  to,  203; 
the  Jews  of,  use  stilted  He¬ 
brew,  56. 

Ito  movement,  the,  origin  of,  1 1 6 ; 
a  secession  from  Zionism,  137; 
Zangwill  leader  of,  137;  ob¬ 
jects  of,  137;  difficulties  en¬ 
countered  by,  1 4 1 ;  a  philan¬ 
thropic  movement,  141-142; 
promotes  dispersion,  142.  See 
also  Zionistic  Territorial  Or¬ 
ganization. 

Jaffa,  alluded  to,  51,  55,  155,  158; 
a  Mizrachi  school  at,  177. 

Jerusalem,  how  viewed  by  the  Jews 
of  the  Diaspora,  30;  Napoleon 
plans  to  re-establish,  39;  Jews 
in,  during  the  Middle  Ages, 
49;  a  Mizrachi  school  at,  177. 

Jewish  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station,  the,  at  Athlit,  sup¬ 
ported  by  Palestine  sentiment, 
1S5* 

Jewish  Chronicle,  the  London,  let¬ 
ter  by  Herzl  in,  87-88;  and 
the  East  African  proposal,  123. 


Jewish  Colonial  Trust,  the,  an  ex¬ 
pression  of  Pinsker’s  ideas,  66; 
established,  122;  and  the  East 
African  proposal,  124;  moneys 
of,  withheld  from  use  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  East  African 
proposal,  13 1 ;  action  against, 
140;  London  seat  of,  145;  use 
of  funds  of,  152;  alluded  to, 
196. 

Jewish  Colonization  Association, 
the,  purely  philanthropic,  79; 
as  a  factor  in  Palestine  colon¬ 
ization,  81;  hostile  to  Zionism, 
95 ;  attitude  of,  towards  East 
African  proposal,  128;  to  be 
represented  in  organization 
proposed  at  Palestine  Con¬ 
gress,  133;  Zangwill  on,  139. 
Jewish  Company,  a,  proposed  by 
Herzl,  90. 

Jewish  history,  three  attempts  at 
a  philosophy  of,  148  et  seq. 
Jewish  National  Fund,  the,  an  ex¬ 
pression  of  Pinsker’s  ideas, 
66;  proposition  to  invest, 
wholly  in  land  in  Palestine, 
153;  gives  land  for  the  Sied- 
lungsgenossenschaft,  170;  al¬ 
luded  to,  196. 

Jewish  question,  the,  viewed  opti¬ 
mistically,  100. 

Jewish  Territorial  Organization, 
the.  See  Ito  movement,  the. 
Jewish  vote,  the,  in  Austria  and 
Hungary,  174. 

Jews,  the,  in  Rome,  24-25;  and  a 
universal  Christian  community, 
25;  and  Protestantism,  25; 
and  internationalism,  26;  and 
nationalism,  26-27;  under  the 
modernizing  process,  28-29; 
since  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple,  35;  attitude  of,  to¬ 
wards  return  to  Palestine,  35- 

245 


INDEX 


36;  and  Christian  sympathizers 
with  Jewish  nationalism,  41; 
of  Europe,  interested  in  the 
Jews  of  the  East,  50;  anom¬ 
alous  position  of,  analyzed  by 
Pinsker,  63-64;  and  assimila¬ 
tion,  69;  individualistic,  109; 
invited  to  settle  in  various 
countries,  125;  interested  in 
Socialism,  167;  compared  with 
the  Parsees,  184-185;  united, 
200  et  seq unity  of,  broken 
under  industrial  system  of 
modern  times,  202  et  seq.;  the 
need  of  unity  for,  207;  duties 
of,  in  the  Diaspora,  207-208. 

Jchanan  ben  Zakkai,  Zangwill  on, 
139- 

Johnston,  Sir  H.  H.,  telegram  of, 
on  East  African  proposal,  131. 

Joseph  of  Naxos,  example  of  a 
modern  Jewish  statesman,  92. 

Jost,  alluded  to,  182. 

Judaism,  modified  by  the  Reform¬ 
ers,  20-23;  in  relation  to  Hel¬ 
lenism,  29-30;  free  from  sec¬ 
tarian  schism,  201;  equivalent 
to  Zionism,  216. 

Judaizing  charge,  a,  against  the 
Turkish  Hakki  ministry,  160. 

Judea,  alluded  to,  76. 

Judenstaat,  by  Herzl,  doctrines  in, 
not  new,  82,  83;  compared 
with  Pinsker’s  Autoemancipa¬ 
tion,  83;  when  and  how  writ¬ 
ten,  85-86;  reception  accorded 
to,  86;  alluded  to,  87;  first  edi¬ 
tion  of,  88;  Herzl’s  reply  to 
anti-Semitism,  88;  forerunners 
of,  89;  calmness  of,  91; 
brought  to  the  notice  of  the 
Sultan,  93;  Giidemann  on,  97. 

Judeo-German,  the,  supersedes  He¬ 
brew,  56;  ascendancy  of,  in 
Eastern  Europe,  57-58;  almost 


a  national  tongue,  58;  works 
in,  not  known  in  Western 
Europe,  69-70;  the  language  of 
the  Bund,  175;  superseded  by 
Hebrew  in  Palestine,  194. 

Judische  Lesehalle,  the,  Berlin,  a 
product  of  anti-Semitism,  148. 

Kadimah,  the,  of  Vienna,  connected 
with  the  Chovevi  Zion  move¬ 
ment,  72;  founded  by  Nathan 
Birnbaum,  86;  Jewish  nation¬ 
alistic  in  sentiment,  86;  ad¬ 
herent  of  Herzl,  86,  92;  origin, 
aims,  and  influence  of,  147- 
148;  model  for  similar  organ¬ 
izations,  148. 

Kalischer,  Hirsch,  Moses  Hess  in¬ 
fluenced  by,  37;  on  the  colo¬ 
nization  of  Palestine,  52-54;  in¬ 
spires  Hess,  53;  inspires  Net- 
ter,  54;  offered  position  in 
Mikweh  Israel  Agricultural 
School,  54;  forms  colony  near 
Sea  of  Tiberias,  55. 

Karaites,  the,  a  Jewish  sect,  201. 

Kartell-Konvent,  federation  of  Jew¬ 
ish  students’  societies,  149. 

Kartell  zionistischer  Verbindungen, 
federation  of  Zionist  students’ 
societies,  149. 

Kharkoff,  Russian  members  of  the 
Central  Committee  meet  at, 
I33-I34- 

Kiev,  alluded  to,  78. 

Kishineff  protest  meeting,  Social¬ 
ists  do  not  participate  in,  167. 

Klein-Kolonisation,  deprecated  by 
the  “politicals,”  152. 

Kohler,  K.,  on  Zionism,  100. 

Konigsberg,  Jewish  students’  so¬ 
cieties  at,  148. 

Kcthen,  Zionist  society  at,  149. 

Kovno,  alluded  to,  66. 


246 


INDEX 


Kultur,  the  debate  on,  176-177; 
and  Judaism,  discussions  on, 
193- 

Kulturkampf,  the,  danger  con¬ 
nected  with,  179. 

Kutzo-Vlachs,  the,  in  Turkey,  159. 

Laborers,  Jewish,  situation  of,  165- 

1 66. 

Laborites,  the,  a  party  in  Great 
Britain,  171. 

La  femme  de  Claude,  drama  by 
Alexandre  Dumas  fils,  41-42. 

Land-tenure,  forbidden  to  Jews, 
166. 

Landesrabbiner,  a  state  rather  than 
a  synagogue  office,  no. 

Language,  a  universal,  a  Jew  in¬ 
vents,  26. 

I.anguage  and  nationalism,  56-57. 

Lansdowne,  Marquis  of,  and  the 
East  African  proposal,  124. 

Lassalle,  Ferdinand,  promoter  of  a 
universalistic  movement,  26. 

Latin,  compared  with  Hebrew,  204. 

Law,  Jewish,  Reform  desires  de¬ 
velopment  of,  106. 

Legislation  concerning  Jews,  in 
Rome,  24-25;  during  the  Mid¬ 
dle  Ages,  25. 

Lemberg,  Jewish  students’  society 
at,  148. 

Levanda,  O.  L.,  on  assimilation, 
68-69;  not  known  in  Western 
Europe,  69;  forerunner  of 
Herzl,  82. 

Levy-Bing,  Lazar,  espouses  Jewish 
nationalism,  2x9. 

Liberals,  the,  a  party  in  Great 
Britain,  171. 

Lida,  first  annual  meeting  of 
Mizrachi  at,  177. 

Lilienblum,  Moses  Lob,  alarmed  by 
the  spread  of  anti-Semitism, 
61-62;  favors  Palestine  colo¬ 


nization,  66-67;  influenced  by 
Pinsker,  67;  works  by,  67,  68; 
on  emigration  to  America,  67- 
68;  not  known  in  Western 
Europe,  69;  leader  of  the 
Chovevi  Zion  movement,  78; 
forerunner  of  Herzl,  82. 

Lippe,  K.,  supporter  of  the  Chovevi 
Zion  movement,  72. 

Lo  seh  ha-Derek,  article  by  Ahad 
ha-Am,  74. 

London,  Herzl  in,  87;  lukewarm 
reception  of  Herzl  by,  92;  al¬ 
luded  to,  98,  1 2 1,  167;  under 
consideration  as  Zionist  cen¬ 
ter,  145. 

London  Conference,  the,  unsuc¬ 
cessful  as  an  organizing 
agency,  2 14-2 15. 

Luzzatti,  example  of  a  modern 
Jewish  statesman,  92. 

Luzzatto,  Samuel  David,  quoted  on 
Palestine,  52. 

Maamar  ha-1  shut,  work  by  Samuel 
Holdheim,  106. 

Maccabaea,  the,  first  official  Zion¬ 
ist  students’  society,  149. 

Maccabaeans,  the,  London,  invite 
Herzl,  87. 

Magnus,  Laurie,  on  Zionism,  iox. 

Magyars,  in  Austria-Hungary,  21 1. 

Maimonides,  Moses,  and  the  return 
to  Palestine,  35;  alluded  to, 
202. 

Mandelstamm,  Professor,  leader 
of  the  Chovevi  Zion  move¬ 
ment,  78. 

Marburg,  Jewish  students’  societies 
at,  148. 

Maronite  Christians,  massacred  by 
the  Druses,  50. 

Marx  and  Engels,  manifesto  by,  in¬ 
ternational,  167. 


247 


INDEX 


Marx,  Karl,  promoter  of  a  uni- 
versalistic  movement,  26;  a 
Jew,  167;  socialism  of,  inter¬ 
national,  167.  See  also  Marx 
and  Engels. 

May  Laws,  the,  in  Russia,  61,  62. 

Mehemet  Ali,  sultan  of  Egypt, 
urged  to  intervene  in  the 
Damascus  blood  accusation, 
49-50. 

Melebbes.  See  Petah  Tikwah. 

Memel,  alluded  to,  69;  a  center  of 
distribution  of  Russo-Jewish 
emigrants,  70. 

Mendelssohn,  Moses,  attitude  of, 
towards  Judaism,  21-22;  the 
descendants  of,  22. 

Mesopotamia,  colonization  in,  con¬ 
templated  by  the  Ito,  141. 

Messianic  idea,  the,  secularized  by 
Smolenskin,  34;  and  Zionism, 
96-97. 

Messianism,  in  opposition  to  Zion¬ 
ism,  98. 

Middle  Ages,  the,  ritual  changes 
during,  21;  and  international¬ 
ism,  23-24;  legislation  of,  re¬ 
garding  the  Jews,  25,  166; 

Jews  in  Palestine  during,  48- 
49;  favor  individual  group¬ 
ings,  202;  Hebrew  in,  203-204. 

Midrash,  the,  on  a  national  lan¬ 
guage,  58. 

Mikweh  Israel  Agricultural  School, 
the,  near  Jaffa,  alluded  to,  51; 
founde .  by  Charles  Netter, 
54;  fails  to  fulfil  purpose,  54- 
55. 

Minhag  (custom),  developed  into 
mizwah  (commandment),  71. 

Minsk  Zionist  Congress,  dominated 
by  the  practical  Zionists,  150; 
the  Democratic  Fraction  at, 
168;  the  Kultur  question  dis¬ 
cussed  at,  176-177. 


Mission,  the  Jewish,  said  to  be  in 
opposition  to  Zionism,  200  et 
seq. 

Mizrachi,  the,  Orthodox  Zionists, 
97,  176;  and  the  East  African 
proposal,  135;  the  demands  of, 
177;  foundation  of,  177;  in¬ 
stitutions  of,  177-178;  well  or¬ 
ganized,  178;  influence  of,  on 
Zionism,  178  et  seq. 

Mizwah  (commandment), developed 
from  minhag  (custom),  71. 

Modern  Hep!  Hep!  Hep!,  The, 
essay  by  George  Eliot,  on 
Jewish  nationalism,  45-46. 

Mohammedan  political  doctrines, 
164. 

Mohilever,  Rabbi,  leader  of  the 
Chovevi  Zion  movement,  78. 

Mombassa,  port  of  East  African 
Protectorate,  123. 

Mommsen,  Theodor,  attacks 
Graetz’s  history,  181-182;  ad¬ 
vises  conversion  to  Christian¬ 
ity,  206. 

Moniteur  Universelle,  alluded  to, 
39- 

Montefiore,  Claude,  on  Zionism, 
100. 

Montefiore,  Sir  Moses,  intervenes 
in  the  Damascus  blood  accusa¬ 
tion  affair,  49-50;  interested  in 
the  Jews  of  the  East,  50. 

Moses,  Ahad  ha-Am  on,  75-76. 

Munich,  chosen  as  meeting  place 
of  First  Zionist  Congress,  113; 
Jewish  students’  societies  at, 
148,  149. 

Munk,  Salomon,  intervenes  in  the 
Damascus  blood  accusation,  49- 
50;  quoted,  on  the  Jews  of  the 
East,  50-51. 

Myerson,  M.,  organizer  of  the 
Chovevi  Zion  movement,  72. 


248 


INDEX 


A’ achtasyl,  term  coined  for  East 
Africa,  129. 

Napoleon,  Jewish  nationalist 
scheme  of,  39. 

Nation,  definition  of,  33-34. 

National  Fund.  See  Jewish  Na¬ 
tional  Fund. 

Nationalism,  revived,  24;  and  the 
Jews,  26;  marked  by  chauvin¬ 
ism;  26;  and  language,  56-57. 

Nationalism,  Jewish,  and  race,  33; 
as  defined  by  Smolenskin,  34- 
35;  civic  and  social,  34;  in  the 
West,  35-41;  Christian  sympa¬ 
thizers  with,  39-47;  and  the 
second  coming  of  Christ,  41; 
Alexandre  Dumas  fils  on,  42; 
Henry  Dunant  on,  42-43; 
George  Eliot  on,  43-47; 
awakens  interest  in  the  He¬ 
brew  language,  55-59;  not 
fostered  in  Western  Europe, 
70;  Ahad  ha-Am  on,  76,  189  et 
seq.;  the  Kadimah  imbued 
with,  86;  in  opposition  to  Re¬ 
form,  98;  the  heart  of  Zion¬ 
ism,  105.  See  also  Chovevi 
Zion;  Hibbat  Zion;  Zionism. 

Nationalist  sentiments,  and  Social¬ 
ism,  166-167. 

Nationalists,  Jewish,  36-41. 

Natural  sciences,  the,  and  inter¬ 
nationalism,  24. 

Nes  Ziyyona.  See  Wadi  el-Hanin. 

Netter,  Charles,  interested  in  the 
Jews  of  the  East,  50;  quoted, 
on  relation  of  Jews  of  Europe 
to  Palestine,  51-52;  inspired 
by  Hirsch  Kalischer,  54. 

Neue  Freie  Presse,  Vienna,  Herzl 
Paris  representative  of,  85; 
Herzl  feuilleton  editor  of,  86; 
attitude  of,  toward  Zionism, 
94. 


New  York,  alluded  to,  106. 

Newlinsky,  Chevalier  de,  emissary 
of  the  Turkish  Sultan,  93. 

Nile,  the,  alluded  to,  122. 

Noah,  Mordecai  Manuel,  as  a  Jew¬ 
ish  nationalist,  38-39. 

Noldeke,  Theodor,  advises  Jews  to 
educate  children  as  Christians, 
206. 

Nordau,  on  Herzl,  92;  favors 
loyal  intercourse  with  Turkey, 
162-163. 

Not  This  Is  the  Way,  article  by 
Ahad  ha-Am,  74. 

Observances,  Jewish,  influence  of 
the  modern  spirit  on,  204. 

Odessa,  center  of  Chovevi  Zion 
movement,  72;  alluded  to,  74. 

Odessa  Committee,  the,  of  the 
Chovevi  Zion,  influential  in 
the  movement,  72-73;  national¬ 
ist  in  sentiment,  78;  to  be 
represented  in  organization 
proposed  at  Palestine  Con¬ 
gress,  133.  See  also  Chovevi 
Zion  movement,  the. 

Oliphant,  Laurence,  Christian 
sympathizer  with  Jewish  na¬ 
tionalism,  41. 

“  Onwards-Eastwards.”  See  Kadi¬ 
mah,  the. 

Oppenheimer,  Franz,  the  Poale 
Zion  followers  of,  169. 

Organization,  an  achievement  of 
Zionism,  108-109;  debates  on, 
in  the  Congresses,  172;  of 
Jewry,  Zionism  fails  in,  213 
et  seq.;  of  Jewry,  philanthropic 
agencies  fail  in,  213  et  seq. 

Orthodoxy,  detrimental  effect  of, 
on  Jews,  30;  and  secularization 
of  Hebrew,  58;  favorable  to 
colonization  of  Palestine,  70- 
71;  hostile  to  Zionism,  95; 


249 


INDEX 


opposes  Zionism  for  religious 
reasons,  96-97;  Zionism  not 
opposed  to,  177;  congruous 
with  Zionism,  199-200. 

Otranto,  alluded  to,  203. 

Ottoman  statehood,  Zionism  in  no 
way  hostile  to,  163-164.  See 
also  Ottomanism. 

Ottomanischer  Lloyd,  the,  Constan¬ 
tinople,  expresses  German  op¬ 
position  to  Jewish  colonists  in 
Palestine,  158. 

Ottomanism,  Zionism  represented 
as  incompatible  with,  160;  said 
to  be  endangered  by  Zionism, 
1 6  x ;  Zionist  leaders  insist 
upon,  161  et  seq .;  the  excesses 
of,  164;  future  prosperity  of, 
conditioned  on  decentraliza¬ 
tion,  164.  See  also  Ottoman 
statehood. 

Padua,  alluded  to,  52. 

Paganism,  and  a  universal  Chris¬ 
tian  community,  24. 

Palestine,  the  loss  of,  as  viewed  by 
the  Reformers,  23;  return  to, 
in  the  creed,  35;  attitude  of 
Jews  towards,  35-36;  Jews  in, 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  48- 
49;  Charles  Netter  on,  51-52; 
new  conception  of  place  of,  in 
Jewish  life,  52  et  seq.;  Samuel 
David  Luzzatto  on,  52;  the 
schools  of,  59;  why  holy,  in 
Pinsker’s  view,  64;  the  pur¬ 
chase  of,  advocated,  67;  agri¬ 
cultural  colonies  in,  76-77; 
Herzl  not  fascinated  by,  90- 
91;  charter  for,  offered  to 
Herzl,  93;  place  of,  in  the 
Basel  Program,  115-116;  study 
of,  under  the  Tchioh,  149;  in¬ 
stitutions  in,  supported  by 
general  Jewish  sentiment  for, 


155;  the  general  sentiment  for, 
fostered  by  the  Palestine  Com¬ 
mission,  155-156;  prejudice  to¬ 
wards  Zionism  in,  158;  in  a 
decentralized  Turkey,  164; 
tilled  by  Arabs,  169;  cultural 
aspects  of  resettlement  in, 
Ahad  ha-Am  on,  190-191;  a 
spiritual  center,  1 9 1 ;  the  re¬ 
vival  of  Hebrew  in,  193-194; 
general  revival  of  culture  in, 
194-195;  too  small  for  a  large 
portion  of  the  Jewish  race, 
208;  Zionist  work  in,  213; 
political  status  of,  dependent 
on  that  of  Turkey,  215. 

Palestine  Commission,  the,  place 
of,  in  the  Zionist  movement, 
154;  criticism  of  plans  of, 

154- 15S;  value  of  work  of, 

155- 156. 

Palestine,  the  colonization  of,  early 
advocates  of,  37;  Jewish  or¬ 
ganizations  refuse  to  be  in¬ 
terested  in,  42;  stimulated  by 
Russian- Jewish  troubles,  48; 
Samuel  David  Luzzatto  on, 
52;  Hirsch  Kalischer  on,  52- 
54;  early  attempts  at,  unsuc¬ 
cessful,  55;  and  the  cultiva¬ 
tion  of  Hebrew,  59;  Pinsker  at 
head  of  society  for,  67;  Lilien- 
blum  on,  68 ;  associated  with 
Orthodox  tenets,  71;  advanced 
by  the  Odessa  Committee  of 
the  Chovevi  Zion,  72-73;  as 
viewed  by  Eastern  Jews,  78; 
supported  by  various  organiza¬ 
tions,  79;  as  a  philanthropy, 
79-81;  participation  of  Baron 
Edmond  de  Rothschild  in,  80- 
81;  participation  of  Jewish 
Colonization  Association  in, 
81;  a  generally  acceptable 
element  in  Zionism,  104-105; 


INDEX 


Herzl’s  attitude  toward,  u  7- 
1 1 8 ;  deprecated  by  the  "polit¬ 
icals,”  151-152;  objected  to, 
for  the  sake  of  Turkey,  162. 
See  also  Hibbat  Ziyyon;  Cho- 
vevi  Zion;  Palestinian  Zion¬ 
ism;  Ziyyone  Zionists;  Agri¬ 
cultural  colonies  in  Palestine. 

Palestine  Zionist  Congress,  organ¬ 
ization  proposed  by,  133;  al¬ 
luded  to,  153. 

Palestinian  Jews,  the,  alluded  to, 
201. 

Palestinian  Zionism,  emphasized, 
15 1  et  seq.;  advocated  by  the 
Ziyyone  Zionists,  152;  Ussisch- 
kin  leader  of,  153;  advanced 
under  Wolffsohn,  153;  victo¬ 
rious  at  Congress  of  1911, 
154;  Warburg  on,  154;  and 
the  Palestine  Commission,  154; 
danger  in,  155-156;  favored  by 
recent  events  in  Turkey,  156 
et  seq.;  a  phase  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  movement,  165. 
See  also  Chovevi  Zion  move¬ 
ment,  the;  Palestine,  the  col¬ 
onization  of,  etc. 

Paris,  alluded  to,  39,  203;  Herzl  in, 

85. 

Parsees,  the,  alluded  to,  184. 

Parties,  in  Great  Britain,  171. 

Patriotism,  and  Zionism,  208  et  seq. 

Pesaro,  alluded  to,  203. 

Petah  Tikwah  (Melebbes),  early 
colony  in  Palestine,  55,  76. 

Petavel,  Abraham,  on  the  restora¬ 
tion,  219. 

Pharmacy,  Jewish  students  of, 
form  society,  149. 

Philanthropy  in  the  colonization 
of  Palestine,  78,  79,  79-81. 

Philo,  alluded  to,  202. 

Pineles,  L.,  supporter  of  the  Cho¬ 
vevi  Zion  movement,  72. 


Pinsker,  Leo,  alarmed  by  the  ef¬ 
fects  of  anti-Semitism  on  Jews, 
62;  analyzes  the  situation  with 
reference  to  the  Jews,  62-64; 
agrees  with  Moses  Hess,  63; 
a  territorialist,  64;  work  by, 
64-66;  influences  Lilienblum, 
67;  influences  Riilf,  70;  in¬ 
fluence  of,  in  Russia,  71;  at 
the  head  of  the  Chovevi  Zion 
movement,  72,  78;  alluded  to, 
72,  73.  7 4.  142;  forerunner  of 
Herzl,  82,  83,  89;  alluded  to, 
142;  insists  upon  understand¬ 
ing  with  Constantinople,  161. 

Plehve,  von,  Herzl  in  consultation 
with,  127. 

Poale  Zion,  the,  and  the  East 
African  proposal,  136-137; 
Zionist  labor  party,  165;  origin 
of,  168;  spread  of,  168;  Zion¬ 
ist  principles  of,  169;  followers 
of  Franz  Oppenheimer,  169- 
170;  new  form  of  Zionist  fed¬ 
eration,  170-171;  alluded  to, 
172;  offshoot  from,  228. 

Poles,  in  Austria-Hungary,  21 1; 
in  Germany,  21 1;  the,  secure 
national  recognition  in  the 
Workingmen’s  Democratic 
Party,  175-176. 

Political  Zionism,  in  abeyance,  151 
et  seq.;  principles  of,  1 51- 152; 
a  phase  in  the  development  of 
the  movement,  165. 

Pork  eating  advised  by  Salomon 
Reinach  for  Jews,  27. 

Portuguese  Government,  invites 
Jews  to  settle  in  Angola,  125. 

**  Practical  work  ”  in  Palestine, 
colonization  of  Palestine,  54. 
See  Palestine,  the  colonization 
of;  Ziyyone  Zionists,  etc. 

Prague,  Jewish  students’  society 
at,  148. 


251 


INDEX 


Prayers,  the,  modified  by  the  Re¬ 
formers,  23,  99. 

Pre-Herzlites,  Western,  36-41. 

Preussische  Jahrbucher,  the,  refer¬ 
ence  to,  206. 

Proletarian  movement,  the,  in 
Russia,  173  et  seq. 

Promised  Land,  the.  See  Pales¬ 
tine. 

Prophets,  the,  extremists,  192. 

Protestantism,  and  the  Jews,  25. 

Proudhon,  Moses  Hess  adherent 
of,  36. 

Prussian  Jewish  communities,  al¬ 
luded  to,  103. 

Psalms,  the,  commentary  on, 
quoted,  17,  19. 

Rabbiner-Verband,  the  German, 
holds  Zionism  and  patriotism 
to  be  incompatible,  210. 

Rabbinical  Conference,  the  Frank¬ 
fort,  on  the  restoration  of  the 
Jewish  state,  23. 

Rabbino  Maggiore,  a  title  without 
religious  significance,  no. 

Rabinowitz,  S.  P.,  leader  of  the 
Chovevi  Zion  movement,  78. 

Race,  and  Jewish  nationalism,  33. 

Racial  unity,  citizenship  not  coin¬ 
cident  with,  2 1 0-2 1 2. 

Ratti  Menton,  French  consul  at 
Damascus,  raises  blood  accusa¬ 
tion,  49. 

Rebirth  of  the  Jewish  People  in 
the  Holy  Land  of  Their  An¬ 
cestors,  work  by  Lilienblum, 

68. 

Red  Cross,  the,  founder  of,  42. 

“Red  ticket,”  the,  revival  of,  118. 

Reform  movement,  the,  destroys 
unity  of  Jewish  practice  and 
hope,  28-29,  30;  hostile  to 

Zionism,  95;  hostility  of,  to 
Judaism,  98-99;  desires  de¬ 

252 


velopment  of  Jewish  law,  106; 
antithetic  to  Zionism,  146; 
Graetz  on,  183;  Zionism  incon¬ 
gruous  with,  199-200;  the  mis¬ 
sion  theory  of,  not  incompati¬ 
ble  with  Zionism,  207-208. 
See  also  Reformers,  the. 

Reform  services,  Prussian  Govern¬ 
ment  asked  to  inhibit  intro¬ 
duction  of,  103. 

Reformation,  the,  and  the  Jews, 
25- 

Reformers,  the,  and  political  eman¬ 
cipation,  20;  and  the  cere¬ 
monial  law,  21-22;  and  Jewish 
belief,  22;  and  the  Jewish  dis¬ 
persion,  22-23;  theory  of, 
superseded,  23;  advise  abro¬ 
gating  Jewish  customs  to  meet 
anti-Semitism,  27.  See  also 
Reform  movement,  the. 

Reggio,  alluded  to,  203. 

Rehobot,  Palestine  colony,  a  Bene 
Mosheh  creation,  76. 

Reinach,  Salomon,  advises  modifi¬ 
cation  of  the  Jewish  law,  27. 

Reinach,  Theodore,  demands  civic 
perfection  of  the  Jew,  209-210. 

Reines,  Rabbi  J.,  founder  of  the 
Mizrachi,  177. 

Religion  and  citizenship  in  Rome, 
25- 

Religious  considerations  in  Zion¬ 
ism,  176. 

Renaissance,  the,  and  a  universal 
Christian  community,  24;  and 
the  Jews,  25. 

Resettlement  of  the  land  of  Israel, 
the.  See  Palestine,  the  colon¬ 
ization  of. 

Resh  Geluta,  lay  head  of  Jewish 
community  in  Babylon,  no. 

Restoration,  the,  of  the  Jewish 
state,  Reformers  on,  23;  Pinsk- 
er’s  view  of,  not  religious,  64; 


INDEX 


Spinoza  on,  217;  Steinthal, 
Franck,  and  Cohen  on,  217. 
See  also  under  Palestine. 

Return  of  the  Exiles,  work  by 
Lilienblum,  67. 

Rishon  le-Zion,  early  agricultural 
colony  in  Palestine,  76;  al¬ 
luded  to,  81. 

Ritual  changes,  made  by  Reform¬ 
ers,  21,  28. 

Roman  Church,  the,  and  a  uni¬ 
versal  Christian  community, 
23-24. 

Roman  culture,  compared  with 
Hellenism,  29. 

Rome,  the  Jews  in,  24-25;  alluded 
to,  203. 

Rome  and  Jerusalem,  the  Latest 
National  Question,  work  by 
Moses  Hess,  37*38;  how  re¬ 
ceived,  37-38;  influences 
Graetz,  38;  by  Hess,  forerun¬ 
ner  of  the  Judenstaat,  89. 

Rosh  Pinnah,  early  agricultural 
colony  in  Palestine,  76. 

Rothschild,  Baron  Edmond  de,  in¬ 
terested  in  Palestine  only  as 
a  philanthropist,  79;  large  par¬ 
ticipation  of,  in  Palestine  col¬ 
onization,  80-81;  and  the  Wine 
Growers’  Association,  81;  to 
be  represented  in  organization 
proposed  at  Palestine  Con¬ 
gress,  133- 

Roumania,  the  Jews  of,  affected  by 
anti-Semitism,  27;  the  Chovevi 
Zion  movement  in,  72;  Jews 
from,  settle  in  Palestine,  76; 
Jewish  question  in,  viewed 
optimistically,  100. 

Roumanian  Jewish  students,  in 
Germany,  146;  in  Vienna,  147. 

Rulf,  Isaac,  espouses  the  Hibbat 
Ziyyon  movement,  69;  connec¬ 

17 


tion  of,  with  Russo-Jewish 
exodus,  70;  influenced  by 
Pinsker,  70;  work  by,  70;  fore¬ 
runner  of  Herzl,  82,  89;  al¬ 
luded  to,  142. 

Russia,  Jews  from,  settle  in  Pales¬ 
tine,  49,  76;  Jewish  question 
in,  viewed  optimistically,  100; 
the  proletarian  movement  in, 
173  et  seq. 

Russia,  the  Jews  of,  affected  by 
anti-Semitism,  27;  interested 
in  colonization  of  Palestine, 
48;  use  unliterary  Hebrew,  56; 
effect  of  anti-Semitism  on,  60- 
61;  why  inclined  to  territorial- 
ism,  64;  and  the  Hibbat 
Ziyyon  movement,  71-72. 

Russian  Jewish  students,  in  Ger¬ 
many,  146;  in  Vienna,  147. 

Russian  Workingmen’s  Democratic 
Party,  the  Bund  a  section  of, 
173;  demands  complete  assimi¬ 
lation,  173;  the  Bund  breaks 
with,  174;  recognizes  the  Poles 
as  a  nationality,  175. 

Saadia,  alluded  to,  202. 

Sabaheddin,  Prince,  favors  Otto¬ 
man  decentralization,  164. 

Sabbatai  Zebi,  alluded  to,  36;  Don- 
meh  followers  of,  160. 

Sabbath  violation,  advised  by  Salo¬ 
mon  Reinach,  27. 

Safed,  Jews  in,  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  49. 

St.  Petersburg,  alluded  to,  126. 

Salvador,  Joseph,  historian,  as  3 
Jewish  nationalist,  40. 

Samaria,  alluded  to,  77. 

Sangerbund,  a  German  contribu¬ 
tion  to  American  life,  21 1. 

"  Sanhedrin,”  Napoleon’s,  39. 

Schatz,  Boris,  founder  of  the 
Bezalel  school,  194. 


INDEX 


Schopenhauer,  advises  conversion 
to  Christianity,  206. 

Second  Jewish  Commonwealth,  his¬ 
torian  of,  40. 

Sects,  Jewish,  fewness  of,  201. 

Sefardim,  the,  alluded  to,  20;  use 
Spanish,  57. 

Self-emancipation,  preached  by 
Pinsker,  64-65;  means  for 
securing,  65-66. 

Sermons,  in  the  synagogue,  a  plea 
for,  183. 

Servians,  the,  in  Turkey,  159. 

Shapira,  Professor,  leader  of  the 
Chovevi  Zion  movement,  78. 

Shekel  money,  the,  withheld  from 
use  in  connection  with  East 
African  proposal,  131. 

Shulhan  Aruk,  the,  threatens  petri¬ 
faction,  106. 

Siedlungsgenossenschaft,  form  of 
settlements  in  Palestine,  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  Poale  Zion,  169- 
170. 

Singer,  a  socialist  and  a  Jew,  167. 

Slavs,  the,  manifest  national  con¬ 
sciousness,  24. 

Smolenskin,  Perez,  on  Jewish 
nationalism,  34-35;  names  the 
Kadimah,  147. 

Social-Democratic  Party.  See 
Russian  Workingmen’s  Demo¬ 
cratic  Party. 

Socialism,  Jews  founders  of,  26, 
167;  anti-religious  and  anti¬ 
national,  166-167;  and  Zion¬ 
ism  squared  by  the  Poale  Zion, 
168-169. 

Socialists,  the,  refuse  to  espouse 
cause  of  persecuted  Jews,  167. 

Society  of  Jews,  a,  demanded  by 
Herzl,  89-90. 

Solomon  ben  Adret,  alluded  to, 
201. 


Sonino,  example  of  a  modern  Jew¬ 
ish  statesman,  92. 

Sons  of  Moses.  See  Bene  Mosheh. 
Spain,  alluded  to,  204. 

Spanish,  the,  supersedes  Hebrew 
in  the  Semitic  East,  57. 
Spinoza,  alluded  to,  202;  on  the 
restoration  to  Palestine,  217. 
Statesmen  among  modern  Jews, 

91-92. 

Steinschneider,  alluded  to,  182;  in¬ 
tention  underlying  investiga¬ 
tions  of,  183. 

Steinthal,  H.,  on  Zion,  217. 
Strassburg,  Jewish  students’  so¬ 
cieties  at,  148,  149;  alluded  to, 
206. 

Students’  societies,  in  Austria,  147- 
148;  in  Germany,  148-150;  in 
Germany,  bulwarx  against  anti- 
Semitism  and  conversion,  150- 

151. 

Suczawa,  Jewish  students’  society 
at,  148. 

Synagogue,  the,  democratic,  no; 

in  modern  times,  204. 

Syrian  and  Palestinian  Coloniza¬ 
tion  Society,  founded  by 
Henry  Dunant,  43. 

Tachkemoni  schools,  the,  of  the 
Mizrachi,  make  justified  de¬ 
mands,  179;  purpose  of,  194. 
Talmud,  the,  quoted,  17,  19,  98, 
138. 

Tancred,  nationalist  tendencies  in 
Disraeli’s,  40. 

Tanganyika,  Lake,  boundary  of 
East  African  Protectorate,  123. 
Tchioh,  Zionist  society  at  Kothen, 
149. 

Technical  School,  the,  at  Haifa, 
result  of  Palestine  sentiment, 
155. 

254 


INDEX 


Tendenzschriften,  characterization 
of  works  of  modern  Jewish 
historians,  183. 

Territorialism.  See  Ito  movement, 
the. 

Thomas,  Father,  disappearance  of, 
causes  Damascus  blood  accusa¬ 
tion,  49. 

Thorn,  alluded  to,  52. 

Thuringia,  the,  Breslau  Jewish 
students’  society,  148. 

Tiberias,  Jews  in,  during  the  Mid¬ 
dle  Ages,  49. 

Tiberias,  Sea  of,  early  Jewish  set¬ 
tlement  at,  55. 

Times,  the  London,  alluded  to,  160. 

Trading-companies,  English, 
Herzl’s  model,  90. 

Traditional  Judaism,  society  for 
strengthening,  149.  See  also 
Orthodoxy. 

Treitschke,  Heinrich  von,  attacks 
Graetz’s  history,  181-182. 

Trietsch,  Davis,  advocates  Cyprus 
colonization,  120. 

Turkey,  under  Sultan  Abdul 
Hamid,  11 7;  and  Cyprus,  120; 
recent  events  in,  favorable  to 
Palestinian  Zionism,  156  et 
seq.;  awakened  patriotism  in, 
157-158;  prejudice  towards 
Zionism  in,  158  et  seq.;  Zion¬ 
ism  favors  loyal  intercourse 
with,  1 61  et  seq.;  distraught 
state  of,  215. 

Turkish  dominion  in  Palestine 
hostile  to  Jews,  48. 

Union  and  Progress,  Committee  of, 
and  Zionism,  158;  influenced 
by  the  Alliance  Israelite  Uni- 
verselle,  159-160. 

Union  of  American  Hebrew  Con¬ 
gregations,  the,  hold  Zionism 

255 


and  patriotism  to  be  incom¬ 
patible,  210. 

United  States,  the,  growth  of,  and 
the  national  consciousness,  24; 
alluded  to,  54;  the  Chovevi 
Zion  movement  in,  72;  protest 
against  the  “red  ticket,”  118; 
an  example  of  racial  diversity, 
21 1-2 1 2.  See  also  America. 

Unity,  Jewish,  threatened  in  modern 
times,  204-205. 

Universal  Race  Congress,  the, 
projected  by  a  Jew,  26. 

Universalism.  See  International¬ 
ism  ;  Christian  community,  a 
universal. 

Universalistic  movements,  pro¬ 
moted  by  Jews,  26. 

Ussischkin,  Michael,  presides  over 
a  Congress  in  Palestine,  133; 
a  Chovevi  Zionist,  133;  leader 
of  Palestinian  Zionism,  153; 
antagonizes  Herzl,  153. 

Verbindungen,  at  German  uni¬ 
versities,  nationalistic,  146. 

Verein  zur  Abwehr  des  Anti- 
semitismus,  founded  by  Chris¬ 
tians,  27. 

Viadrina,  the,  Breslau  Jewish 
students’  society,  148. 

Vienna,  alluded  to,  72,  88,  97,  160; 
in  touch  with  Eastern  Jews, 
86;  the  center  of  Zionist  activ¬ 
ity,  144;  advantages  and  dis¬ 
advantages  of,  1 44- 1 45;  hostile 
to  Herzl,  145. 

Vienna  University,  the,  Herzl 
educated  at,  84;  anti-Semitism 
at,  85;  and  the  Kadimah,  147, 
148. 

Vilna,  the  Mizrachi  formed  at,  177. 

Vilna  Conference,  the,  on  the  East 
African  proposal,  135. 

Voskhod,  the,  opposes  Zionism. 


INDEX 


Wadi  el-Hanin  (Nes  Ziyyona), 
early  agricultural  colony  in 
Palestine,  76. 

Wales,  alluded  to,  56. 

Walloons,  in  Germany,  21 1. 

Warburg,  Otto,  presides  over  Cen¬ 
tral  Committee,  151;  on  Pales¬ 
tinian  Zionism,  154;  chairman 
of  the  Palestine  Commission, 
iS4. 

Way  of  Life,  The,  article  by  Ahad 
ha- Am,  74-75,  78,  189. 

Welsh  culture  rescued,  57. 

Wends,  in  Germany,  21 1. 

Western  Jews,  and  political  eman¬ 
cipation,  19-20;  effect  of 
exodus  of  Eastern  Jews  on, 
31-34;  the,  not  acquainted 
with  Judeo-German  works,  69- 
70;  not  interested  in  Jewish 
nationalism,  70;  compared  with 
Eastern  Jews,  77-78;  the,  in 
moral  slavery,  190. 

William  II,  of  Germany,  on  citizen¬ 
ship  and  racial  diversity,  21 1. 

Wine  Growers’  Association,  the, 
prosperous,  81. 

Witte,  Herzl  in  consultation  with, 
127. 

Wolf,  Lucien,  on  Zionism,  100. 

Wolffsohn,  David,  Herzl’s  suc¬ 
cessor,  153;  advances  Palestin¬ 
ian  Zionism,  153-154;  favors 
loyal  intercourse  with  Turkey, 
163. 

Workingmen’s  Democratic  Party. 
See  Russian  Workingmen’s 
Democratic  Party. 

Xenopol,  advises  conversion  to 
Christianity,  206. 

Yates,  Robert  P.,  and  the  East 
African  proposal,  123. 

Yiddish.  See  Judeo-German. 


Yishub  Ere 2  Y Israel.  See  Pales¬ 
tine,  the  colonization  of. 

Young  Judaea,  alluded  to,  150. 

Zamenhof,  Lazarus  Ludwig,  pro¬ 
moter  of  a  universalistic  move¬ 
ment,  26;  a  nationalist  Jew, 
218. 

Zangwill,  Israel,  accords  apprecia¬ 
tion  to  Herzl’s  scheme,  87; 
secures  Herzl’s  appearance  in 
London,  87;  affirms  delegates 
to  Sixth  Congress  to  have  been 
in  favor  of  East  African  pro¬ 
posal,  130;  leader  of  the  Ito 
movement,  137;  as  a  Zionist, 
138;  on  Palestine,  138-139; 
protests  against  policy  of  Jew¬ 
ish  philanthropic  societies,  139; 
on  Zionism,  139;  opposition  of, 
to  Zionism,  140. 

Zikron  Yaakob,  early  agricultural 
colony  in  Palestine,  76;  al¬ 
luded  to,  81. 

Zionism,  proper  time  for  estimate 
of,  18;  Moses  Hess  forerun¬ 
ner  of,  37;  the  platform  of, 
accepted  by  the  Chovevi  Zion, 
73;  supersedes  the  Chovevi 
Zion  movement,  73,  79;  public 
discussion  of,  inaugurated  by 
Herzl,  87;  attitude  of  Neue 
Freie  Presse  towards,  94;  hos¬ 
tility  to,  95;  effect  of,  on  in¬ 
different  Jews,  95-96;  religious 
difficulties  connected  with,  96- 
97;  deepens  Jewishness,  97; 

J.  H.  Diinner  on,  97;  M. 
Friedlander  on,  98;  hostility 
of  Reform  to,  98-99;  welcomed 
by  the  Russian  Hebrew  press, 
99;  Russian  Jewish  press  hos¬ 
tile  to,  99;  M.  Gudemann  on, 
99-100;  Lucien  Wolf  on,  100; 

K.  Kohler  on,  100;  Claude 


256 


INDEX 


Montefiore  on,  ioo;  feared  as 
anti-patriotic,  ioi;  Laurie 
Magnus  on,  ioi;  Central  Con¬ 
ference  of  American  Rabbis 
on,  102;  Ludwig  Geiger  on, 
X02,  103;  Association  of  Jew¬ 
ish  Rabbis  in  Germany  on, 
1 03- 1 04;  place  of  Palestine 
colonization  in,  104-105;  the 
heart  of,  105;  cause  of  strife 
in  Jewish  communities,  105- 
106;  a  vivifying  force,  107; 
a  policy  of  organization,  108- 
109;  objection  to,  in  democ¬ 
racy  of  Jew,  11 1 ;  accused  of 
speaking  for  the  whole  Jewish 
people,  though  it  represents 
only  a  part,  112-113;  uni- 
versalism  of,  113;  object  of, 
defined  by  the  Basel  Program, 
114-116;  political  view  of,  116- 
1 1 8 ;  and  a  fully  independent 
Jewish  state,  126;  split  in,  136- 
137;  compared  with  Itoism, 
1 41 ;  how  affected  by  death  of 
Herzl,  143;  not  a  one-man 
movement,  143-144;  commis¬ 
sion  leadership  of,  144;  re¬ 
moval  of  seat  of,  from  Vienna 
to  Germany,  145-146;  develop¬ 
ment  of,  in  Germany,  146  et 
seq.;  German  leadership  of, 
15 1 ;  danger  to,  from  Palestin¬ 
ian  work,  156;  Charterism  not 
equivalent  of,  157;  and  the 
Committee  of  Union  and  Prog¬ 
ress,  158;  prejudice  towards,  in 
Palestine  and  Turkey,  158  et 
seq.;  represented  as  incom¬ 
patible  with  Ottomanism,  159- 
160;  Turkish  officials  ignorant 
of,  1 61 ;  accused  of  being  a 
Jewish  intrigue  against  Otto¬ 
manism,  1 6 1 ;  leaders  of,  in¬ 
sist  upon  Ottoman  sovereignty, 


161  et  seq.;  in  no  way  Hostile 
to  Ottoman  statehood,  163- 
164;  phases  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of,  165  et  seq.;  squared 
with  Socialism,  by  the  Poale 
Zion,  168-169;  and  a  Jewish 
peasant  population,  169;  ac¬ 
cepts  certain  demands  of  the 
Poale  Zion  and  the  Democratic 
Fraction,  170;  the  Poale  Zion 
a  novel  grouping  under,  170- 
17 1 ;  reproach  against,  by  the 
Bund,  175;  why  junction  of, 
with  Bund  impossible,  175;  re¬ 
ligious  questions  in,  176-177; 
effect  of  the  Mizrachi  on,  178 
et  seq.;  Ahad  ha-Am’s  opposi¬ 
tion  to,  191-192;  takes  account 
of  Jewish  diversity,  194-195; 
necessity  for  the  instruments 
of,  195-196;  idealism  of,  196- 
197;  supposed  to  have  no  mes¬ 
sage  for  the  emancipated  Jew, 

198- 199;  supposed  to  have  a 
message  for  the  Orthodox  Jew, 

199- 200;  supposed  to  be  in 
opposition  to  the  Jewish  mis¬ 
sion,  200  et  seq.;  fallacies  con¬ 
cerning,  207  et  seq.;  the  Re¬ 
form  mission  theory  compati¬ 
ble  with,  207-208;  and  patriot¬ 
ism,  208  et  seq.;  no  conflict 
between  citizenship  and,  212- 
213;  work  of,  in  Palestine, 
213;  small  success  of,  in  or¬ 
ganizing  Jewry,  213  et  seq.; 
offers  basis  for  organization 
of  Jewry,  215;  speculations  on 
the  future  of,  215-216;  equiv¬ 
alent  to  Judaism,  216. 

Zionism,  political.  See  Political 
Zionism. 

Zionism,  practical.  See  Palestin¬ 
ian  Zionism. 


INDEX 


Zionist  activity,  change  in,  151  et 
seq. 

Zionist  character  of  the  German 
juvenile  societies,  150. 

Zionist  meetings  and  collections, 
forbidden  in  Russia,  127. 

Zionist  students’  society,  first  of¬ 
ficial,  149. 

Zionistic  Territorial  Organization, 
a  sign  of  the  secession  at  the 
Seventh  Zionist  Congress,  136; 
Zangwill  leader  of,  136.  See 
Ito  movement,  the.  See  also 


Palestinian  Zionism;  Chovevi 
Zion;  Palestine,  the  coloniza¬ 
tion  of. 

Ziyyone  Zionists,  the,  insist  upon 
Palestine  work,  119;  and  the 
East  African  proposal,  135; 
extreme  Palestinians,  152; 
mostly  Russians,  153-  See 
also  Palestinian  Zionism,  etc. 

Zoroastrianism,  alluded  to,  184. 

Zunz,  alluded  to,  182;  work  by, 
183. 


j£or&  Q^afftmore  (press 

BALTIMORE,  MD.,  U.  8.  A. 


258 


Date  Due 

«!r 1  5  4 

c 

Mr  3  1  % 

AM  1  vs  -i- 

! 

'<■>'  yj 

p rn  9  9  >w 

i 

mart  ’59 

JAN  2  8  ’51 

-  >  -  ' 

n  J 

- 

1 

